And people wonder why I'm slightly misanthropic

[CoffeeIncluded]

Well, my faith in humanity has just taken yet another nosedive.

Just...Look. (Probably work-safe, but NOT for the squeamish)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6595481/Chinese-diners-eat-live-fish-in-YouTube-video.html

That's just...That...

Dear God, words fail me. ...How could...How could anyone possibly do that?!

Don't they...Why...I...I need to sit down.

Oh, and compounding this, at the animal shelter where I volunteer, the shelter has just rescued about 200 Puppy Mill dogs. (Dogs that have basically been neglected and abused their entire lives to make a profit: http://www.stoppuppymills.org/ is one of the most accurate websites I can find about this), so I'm spending all of Sunday afternoon helping out these neglected abused dogs who have never been loved in their entire lives.

...*Sigh* And people wonder at my slightly misanthropic nature...

[Cobra_Ikari]

*huggles*

There's also Japanese live sashimi. I've seen a video of a fish that survived being picked apart and eaten swimmin in a tank, sans one side.

...as for happenings in China, the dogs-skinned-alive video shocked me to the core. =\

*snuggles more*

[Silverraptor]

I'm totally appaled at the Dolphin hunting going on. A video I saw turned the ocean water in the bay completely red.

[Assassin89]

I guess some people have strange tastes. Some think such a dish is a novelty, just some form of amusement based in the culture.

[Coidzor]

...It's that unique sort of laziness that just requires more work...x.x

[CoffeeIncluded]

It's just...I don't even know what to say.

People always tell me that I need to spend less time with animals and more time with people.

I prefer being with the animals.

[Silverraptor]

It's just...I don't even know what to say.

People always tell me that I need to spend less time with animals and more time with people.

I prefer being with the animals.

As you should. My cat is great to be around. He keeps me company better then some people I know.

[CoffeeIncluded]

And my dog's the best too.

Heheh, if I knew how to get pictures online, I'd show you guys a picture of a shelter kitten perched on my shoulder (A shelter kitten I got adopted).

...I can't do much, but I can do something...

[Silverraptor]

And my dog's the best too.

Heheh, if I knew how to get pictures online, I'd show you guys a picture of a shelter kitten perched on my shoulder (A shelter kitten I got adopted).

...I can't do much, but I can do something...

Is it on a camera phone? Just send it to your e-mail and upload the image onto photobucket.

[ThreadKiller]

Although I like to eat fish, that video is a bit sickening to watch... :smalleek:

[CoffeeIncluded]

No, it's on my digital camera. And I don't have a photobucket.

And the sickest part is that some people in my class think this is funny.

[13_CBS]

People like eating certain foods. Sometimes, animals suffer greatly for it.

After years of getting sniggered at for having kimchi as a staple, I'm less sympathetic towards people who decry something that is a part of the nation's culture. Unless, of course, things like "cook a fish alive" or "cut off parts of a living donkey and serve it to guests" were not really things that developed over time in certain places, but instead "shock delicacies" designed to scare and fascinate tourists. :smallconfused:


Do I still like animals? Yes. I love my little toy poodle dearly. Do I also respect customs of other nations? Half-hearted jokes aside, yes.

[golentan]

No creature deserves that. It's not that it's eaten alive, for me. It's that it's been deep fried (having suffered burns a fraction of that they are horrible), and being toyed with before being eaten alive. It's like every torture and primal fear I can think of rolled into one: suffocation, burning, being helpless to face an obvious death, being eaten. And yeah, some of that I'm undoubtedly projecting, but nowhere near as much as some might think. And it's done for what? Amusement? You can't tell me it tastes any better when your food still feels pain. I... just...

I need to go cry now. This has been such a nightmarish day.

[ThreadKiller]

People like eating certain foods. Sometimes, animals suffer greatly for it.

After years of getting sniggered at for having kimchi as a staple, I'm less sympathetic towards people who decry something that is a part of the nation's culture.



Now that's just silly and mean-spirited. Kimchi is a staple for many Asians, especially Koreans, and it's pretty much Asian sauerkraut. I don't care for it myself, but perhaps I might like it if someone had a really good recipe.

[13_CBS]

Now that's just silly and mean-spirited.

Many of them couldn't get over the whole "let the vegetable ferment" part. Others were miffed by Korean-style sausage ("sundae", pronounced "soon-day": "Good gods, man! You take pork blood, mix it with noodles, and shove it in pig intestines! How can you eat that?!"), blood soup (the chunks of blood taste very, very much like liver, right down to the texture), and dog. As a result, I'm rarely inclined to sympathize with people who I feel do the same to other cultures' foods.

[golentan]

Hold up. How is it possible in any way for this dish not to be shock value?

How, in any way, would the dish taste different if the fish were dead when fried? Unless a toxic or ruinous enzyme in it's head is released when it's dead, there isn't a leg to stand on. And even then, what is lost by just cutting off the head?

Now, this, right here, from the article?


It is not the first time that the Chinese have been criticised for their extreme eating habits.
Reports have claimed some restaurants offer monkey's brains. Other dishes include rats, dogs, snakes, lizards and baby mice.

This isn't bad. In fact, it's wrong to mention in the article. It's a conflation with something that IS just a cultural prejudice. It's not what you eat, it's how you treat it. There is a massive difference between frying (or partially frying) and eating a whole fish, and doing the same thing while it can still feel pain.

I, and I think most of the rational responses to this, are based on what is essentially a form of torture, not what the food itself is. And hiding behind a facade of "Accept my Culture" isn't a good enough response for me. Slavery was a cultural artifact which is now almost universally decried as wrong. That doesn't mean manual labor is wrong. Just that you pay people for it, and don't whip them for messing up. Similarly, eat what you choose to. But don't torture animals for it. And before anyone jumps on my back, I feel the same way about Pate (can't figure out how to do the little accent), and Veal. This isn't a cultural thing, it's an empathy thing. It's showing moderate respect for that which you use to sustain and satisfy yourself. "Gross" is different from "Cruel." I wish people would stop using them interchangeably.

(P.S. Kimchi is delicious. As is blood soup. If you like blood soup, you may enjoy Black Pudding.)

[Serpentine]

Hear here, Golley.

There's a big difference between thinking that a particular food is yucky out of cultural difference, and considering a practice morally wrong.
There is also a big difference between killing an animal for food, and slowly torturing it to death for shock/aesthetic/whatever reasons.

[Cobra_Ikari]

For consideration:

Ikizukuri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikizukuri)

Fur Farms (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3998863333872536083#)

...*hugs and sighs*...

[Coidzor]

I wonder how bears eat fish.

When does the fish expire? How?

I have such a morbid fascination right now that you've set off in wondering.

[RS14]

I wonder how bears eat fish.

When does the fish expire? How?

I have such a morbid fascination right now that you've set off in wondering.

I imagine they rapidly lose consciousness through dropping blood pressure as their organs are crushed or punctured. Alternatively, central nervous system damage directly inflicted by the teeth would do it, but I've not seen bears catching fish by the head, so this seems less likely.



Note that when humans catch fish, it is not uncommon to just let them die of asphyxiation once they leave water. Not particularly pleasant either...

[Ichneumon]

I have a huge respect for the customs of people from other cultures, but not when they violate the basic inalienable rights of other sentient beings.

I just watched it... god that's horrible. Doing that to any creature that is sentient and can feel pain is horrible.

[Klose_the_Sith]

That was really quite interesting, I can't say I'm hungry per say, but I'm certainly not as appalled as everyone else seems to be.

I mean, yes it's a horrible thing to do, but it still appeals to my fascination with the macabre.

[Ecks Dee]

While that's not very nice to animals, is that what you predicate your disdain for humans on?

Y'know, I'd be more worried about the human predilection to kill each other alive, on scales much larger than 'some people in China ate a fish once'. There are lots of examples of stuff much worse than this (battery farming, etc), and this is only a drop in the ocean of human and animal suffering.

[toasty]

I'd like to point out that humans have done a lot of horrible things to other *humans*.

For instance... slavery...

My parents can probably tell you enough horror stories about what people do to each other to make you sick.

[CoffeeIncluded]

While that's not very nice to animals, is that what you predicate your disdain for humans on?

Y'know, I'd be more worried about the human predilection to kill each other alive, on scales much larger than 'some people in China ate a fish once'. There are lots of examples of stuff much worse than this (battery farming, etc), and this is only a drop in the ocean of human and animal suffering.

No, it's just yet another example.

[Ilena]

It's just...I don't even know what to say.

People always tell me that I need to spend less time with animals and more time with people.

I prefer being with the animals.

I know what you mean, id rather spend time with my horses then anyone else, they are the biggest comfort ive got.

[Ichneumon]

I´d say how we treat animals tells us, more than how we treat each other, something about us and our society . Animals in our society are the weakest of the weak, the lowest of the low. However we treat them has likely little to no consequences for us. They can´t complain or have the power to communicate their dissatisfaction to the masses and we can do to them almost anything we like. They are defenceless in the most ultimate sense of the word, because they are different from us, it is easy for people not to identify with them. If there is 1 factor that determines the value of a society, it´s how they treat the weak and defenceless: How do we choose to act if we know we can do whatever we want?

Apperently, this is what we do to the weak and defenceless.

[Adlan]

I'll quite happily kill and eat something. I will do my best not to give it lingering death, and ensure it had a good life. I realise that my willingness to kill and eat flesh is a cultural programming.

The same as the Cultural programming that says it is okay to give this fish a long and lingering death. I personally find ti it distasteful, and would try and persuade any diners not to eat such fish, particularly as it has no benefit for the taste of the meal (the meat is still cooked, so why not simply kill the fish just before you fry it?).

[Ichneumon]

It beats me how people can care a lot for the well-being of animals and still think killing it in the first place isn't a violation of that same well-being we care for so much. Animals don't like to be killed.

[Bouregard]

So what? Other peoples eating habbits differ from yours? Scandalous.
Don't get me wrong here the above mentioned example is extreme. But do you really think the media response is justified? It's not that those fishes are a standart snack for rich chinese/japanese people... Other countries other habbits.


Do you think hindus like our cow treatment?
Do you think some religions like how we eat pork?
Or most religions like Black Pudding?

Not to start with what animals do to other animals... ow there are some real cruel things there... Now there will be the "But we're humans we can choose" argument. Yes we're humans. 6.000.000.000 humans to be exact. Some of those will allways do things we can't approve or didn't know why they do it. Also on a sidenote to unfair animal treatment: Do you really want really expensive animal products? And no this didn't stop with food.


Think about it that way. Yes animals should be treated better. But it's not exactly on top of our priority list. The EU throws away tons of edible things a year to keep prices stable while on the other hand people in africa have not enough to eat. We kill thousands of animals because they may have a disease that may cause trouble in 20 years. We could have simply shipped them down to Africa.

The world is not fair. Thats actually depressing, yes but we can't really do something against that.

I wouldn't eat a fish prepared in such a way.But on the other hand who am I to force my eating habbits on other people? They get along well for thousands of years like us.

[bosssmiley]

It's an ingenious cooking method (and an unfakeable guarantee of freshness), but I won't eat anything that can still look me in the eye.

Now, if you'll excuse me, the sentimentality and immured-in-the-values-of-one's-own-cultureness of this thread are becoming somewhat cloying.

PS: Rule 34 of this. :smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

Like I said, there's a difference between cultural cringe and animal abuse.

[Ilena]

My question is is if you had a choice would you want to see someone eating you while you were still alive or would you rather be killed then eaten? Dont bother saying none of the above thats not one of the questions, me personally id rather not see myself get eaten thank you very much, and most animals do kill their prey before eating it.

[Ichneumon]

Not to start with what animals do to other animals... ow there are some real cruel things there... Now there will be the "But we're humans we can choose" argument. Yes we're humans. 6.000.000.000 humans to be exact. Some of those will allways do things we can't approve or didn't know why they do it.

Just like you said, humans do things we don't approve of constantly, does that mean we should think it less wrong when their well-being is violated?


Also on a sidenote to unfair animal treatment: Do you really want really expensive animal products? And no this didn't stop with food.

Just like we have to accept the personal disadvantages of not having the fruits of child labour, we'll just have to accept this too, won't we?


I wouldn't eat a fish prepared in such a way. But on the other hand who am I to force my eating habbits on other people? They get along well for thousands of years like us.

Who you'd be? You'd be no different than the person who'd force their living habbits on other people by demanding the abolition of slavery or female emancipation. Your objections wouldn't come from what they eat, but from what they do to the animals so they can eat them. To object to exploitation always means objecting to the habbits of the exploiter. Objecting to exploitations always means "forcing" someone to no longer experience the benefits of violating somebody else's rights.


My question is is if you had a choice would you want to see someone eating you while you were still alive or would you rather be killed then eaten? Dont bother saying none of the above thats not one of the questions, me personally id rather not see myself get eaten thank you very much, and most animals do kill their prey before eating it.

I'd rather be killed then eaten. However, would you, if you were treated as such (being killed by being eaten alive), object to the fact that they were killing you or to the fact that they were doing so in a less humane manner than they could?

[Closak]

I just had a discussion about this in my college that went...badly.

It basically went like this.

Me: *Mentions this whole thing*
Other student: The dolphins deserve it, they kill our men and children and rape our women, dolphins are evil i tell you, F***ing evil!
Me: *Facedesk*
Other student: If you don't agree with me then you are an idiot and don't deserve to live, because i always know best!


...I'm surrounded by idiots.

[Vizzerdrix]

I wonder how bears eat fish.

When does the fish expire? How?

I have such a morbid fascination right now that you've set off in wondering.

When fattening up for winter, they eat the head and skin for the most calories. after several such fish they will then go back and gorge on the less fatty meat.

All about bulking up.

[Cobra_Ikari]

kill each other alive

...
...
...

...what? How...what...why?

[The Rose Dragon]

...
...
...

...what? How...what...why?

Did you try killing someone while they are dead?

[Ichneumon]

Did you try killing someone while they are dead?

I think the confusion started with people not objecting to the killing of the fish but the manner in which the which got killed, namely by just preparing it as food and eating it as opposed to more "humane" ways of killing it, and Ecks Dee tried to make a comparison between this and the killing of human beings, which most people find objectionable, whatever the manner is it is done in, (although we do recognise more humane ways to do it). The awkward phrase "kill each other alive" is the result of trying to equate the two objectionable events "preparing and eating the fish while it still is alive, and thus killing it" and "killing humans".

[Serpentine]

"Torturing to death" may have been a better way of putting it.

[Trog]

Trog gives this thread two more pages, tops, before it turns into the same arguments as every vegan/vegetarian/pets must be eaten thread we've had, ever.

[bluewind95]

I don't much mind killing other animals... when we're going to eat them. But killing them in this way... for the cruelty of watching it squirm... that is sickening.

Thing is... we can't really compare what other animals do to their food to what we do. Animals don't really understand the concept of cruelty, nor do they have the ability to think up of more humane ways to kill their prey. We do. We know what cruelty is and the fact that they're increasing the cruelty and suffering of the animal rather than decrease it speak volumes for the lack of empathy these people seem to have. It's the concept, you know. It's a helpless being. Do you really want to watch it die, watch it suffer? And worse still, enjoy it? I'm all for eating animals, but the cruelty of killing them is just necessary... not something one really has to outright enjoy.

If that's the way they treat the helpless... I don't think I would like them very much either.

[Gamerlord]

You know, I love meat, I laugh in the face of those insane animal rights advocates and those tree-hugging environmentalists and their silly "global warming"theory, but eating something alive is crossing the line.

Besides, fish tastes bad.

[Syka]

I just had a discussion about this in my college that went...badly.

It basically went like this.

Me: *Mentions this whole thing*
Other student: The dolphins deserve it, they kill our men and children and rape our women, dolphins are evil i tell you, F***ing evil!
Me: *Facedesk*
Other student: If you don't agree with me then you are an idiot and don't deserve to live, because i always know best!


...I'm surrounded by idiots.

They might not have been serious. There was a recent South Park episode about the Japanese killing dolphins, which also turned into a Whale Wars spoof. That was my first thought to their first response, lol. With that episode in mind, it makes sense.

[Tiger Duck]

Trog gives this thread two more pages, tops, before it turns into the same arguments as every vegan/vegetarian/pets must be eaten thread we've had, ever.

My money is on before the end of the third page :smallwink:

[Ichneumon]

I laugh in the face of those insane animal rights advocates.

Right, this is not very insulting at all and not very much fulfilling "Trog's prophecy". :smallsigh:

[Jack Squat]

Right, this is not very insulting at all and not very much fulfilling "Trog's prophecy". :smallsigh:

I'm not sure if he was calling all animal rights people insane, or if he was referring to the 'insane' ones (i.e. PETA, ALF, etc.). Either way, I think he was more of just qualifying his later statement. I mean, how I read it was "Listen, I love eating meat, and I'm not at all concerned about any ramifications of animal raising or global warming, but eating something alive is nuts"

[Ichneumon]

Or if he was referring to the 'insane' ones (i.e. PETA, ALF, etc.).

Either way, it still rather insulting to those people who believe in what "PETA, ALF, etc." are doing. Even if you don't agree or even think what they are doing is unethical, there are way more courteous ways to say so, and saying "<insert group> is insane" is insulting.

[Quincunx]

"Insane" is more socially acceptable than "wrong".

[Ichneumon]

"Insane" is more socially acceptable than "wrong".

No, it isn't. If I say "I think you are wrong" I won't necessarily anger people, in fact most reasonable people will accept it and try to argue with me, not feeling insulted at all. If I say "I think you're insane". Most people WILL feel insulted.

EDIT: At least that is my experience, if you feel differently, we seem to come from different societies.

[Solaris]

I´d say how we treat animals tells us, more than how we treat each other, something about us and our society . Animals in our society are the weakest of the weak, the lowest of the low. However we treat them has likely little to no consequences for us. They can´t complain or have the power to communicate their dissatisfaction to the masses and we can do to them almost anything we like. They are defenceless in the most ultimate sense of the word, because they are different from us, it is easy for people not to identify with them. If there is 1 factor that determines the value of a society, it´s how they treat the weak and defenceless: How do we choose to act if we know we can do whatever we want?

Apparently, this is what we do to the weak and defenceless.

And the disturbing part? I agree with that general sentiment. I think that's a sign of the apocalypse.


Trog gives this thread two more pages, tops, before it turns into the same arguments as every vegan/vegetarian/pets must be eaten thread we've had, ever.

Looks like it didn't last the end of the second page.

Personally? I'll eat fish, sure, but I at least have the decency to eat it dead. People eating live fish doesn't really even blip my radar anymore, not after a deployment. I've seen someone blow themselves up just so they could kill some fifty-odd innocent bystanders and one local soldier who made the mistake of trying to make his country a better place. Hell, I tried to kill someone just because he swerved out into the middle of our convoy. (I didn't - he pulled over when he saw me chasing him and I have trouble looking a ten-year-old kid in the eye as he's hanging off the back of a Bongo truck I'm running down with an FMTV. Call me crazy.) I've seen videos of soldiers tortured to death in horrific, grotesque ways simply because the people who'd captured him hated him, personally and impersonally, just that much. That kind of hate? That makes me realize we got no hope for this planet ever knowing peace, love, and all that hippie stuff. That sort of thing, that's a lie brought about by people working to allow other people to believe in it.
You wanna talk about the evils men do, look at what they'll do to each other without someone stronger than they to keep them in line. Trust me, the things we'll do to each other make eating live fish pale in comparison.

[SurlySeraph]

Actually, I've generally found the same as Quincunx. In my experience, it's generally considered more respectful to suggest that some outside factor has affected someone's opinion than that there's something wrong with their opinion in and of itself. This can get very patronizing and weird, of course.

On the actual topic... eh. I've heard of such things before, and I find it distasteful and wish it wouldn't happen. But animals eat each other alive all the time. The question of why someone would want to cook and eat a fish while it's still alive bothers me more than the fact that they do so.


And the disturbing part? I agree with that general sentiment. I think that's a sign of the apocalypse.

Eh, animal cruelty's not nearly as bad today as it used to be in a lot of ways. Bear baiting used to be a primary form of entertainment. However, it occurs on a larger scale than it used to, since industrialized farming and high-density animal raising only became possible relatively recently.

[Ichneumon]

@SurlySeraph: Did you always have that kitten in your avatar's hand? Or did I only just notice it?:smallconfused:

[Tiger Duck]

I think it's new, but I'm not sure

[Lord Fullbladder, Master of Goblins]

It's been there since he switched to this avatar.

Huh. I really don't have anything to contribute to this thread. I mean, I wouldn't want a moving meal, but I'm finding myself emotionally unaffected. Yeah, it's cruel. And unusual, so maybe I'm just emotionally distant or something. Sorry, but there it is.

[Jack Squat]

Either way, it still rather insulting to those people who believe in what "PETA, ALF, etc." are doing. Even if you don't agree or even think what they are doing is unethical, there are way more courteous ways to say so, and saying "<insert group> is insane" is insulting.

The point is I'm not sure if he was saying "animal rights activists are insane" or if he was referring to "insane people who happen to believe in animal rights". There's a huge difference between the two, and in the context of the sentence, it could go either way.

[truemane]

Look, in all seriousness, they're just animals. They aren't weak and defenseless in the way that some humans are weak and defenseless. They don't have any 'inalienable rights due to all sentient beings' because they aren't sentient beings and they don't really have any rights. Nor should they, quite frankly.

Yes they're cute and yes we love them and yes the tame and domesticated ones depend on us for food and such, but if a building was burning down and I could choose to save a cat or a human I'm choosing the human.

Anyone who would save a human and let a cat die can't really talk about the moral rights of animals as if they're humans. Anyone who would save a cat and let a human die quite frankly loses the right to morally judge anyone.

I know I'm swimming against the stream here, and am likely to draw a lot of criticism from people who insist on thinking their pets are people. But no other culture on earth has ever anthropomorphized its animals the way we have ours. But they're not people. They're animals. They don't need our love. All they need is food and sex, not necessarily in that order.

Let me be clear, I don't think we need to be mean to animals. I'm happy there are animal cruelty laws. I have four cats, eight rats and a dog and I love them all dearly. But in the end they aren't philosophers or farmers or industrialists or lawyers or teachers.

They're just animals.

[Ichneumon]

The point is I'm not sure if he was saying "animal rights activists are insane" or if he was referring to "insane people who happen to believe in animal rights". There's a huge difference between the two, and in the context of the sentence, it could go either way.

I understand the difference, but even if he meant only to call a certain group of people insane who happen to believe in animal rights, it still is rather insulting to people who believe in what the "insane" people are doing and how they are doing it.


Anyone who would save a human and let a cat die can't really talk about the moral rights of animals as if they're humans. Anyone who would save a cat and let a human die quite frankly loses the right to morally judge anyone.

Ehm, what if there are 2 humans, one black man and one white man? Surely you have to try to save at least one of them. Chosing to save one of them doesn't mean you don't believe in the equality of human beings, whatever their race might be. So I don't see why it should be like that if it concerns animals.


Yes they're cute and yes we love them and yes the tame and domesticated ones depend on us for food and such, but if a building was burning down and I could choose to save a cat or a human I'm choosing the human.

I don't care if they are cute, they are living beings who can feel, which is what I believe to be the most accepted definition of "sentient", being aware, experiencing/sensating what is happening around you, which includes being able to feel pain. I wouldn't choose 1 of them above the other based on their species.


They aren't weak and defenseless in the way that some humans are weak and defenseless.

Right, I'm not saying every human being is less weak and defenseless than every other animal, but I don't think it is far fetched to call them "one of the most weak and defenseless" in our society, in general.


I know I'm swimming against the stream here, and am likely to draw a lot of criticism from people who insist on thinking their pets are people. But no other culture on earth has ever anthropomorphized its animals the way we have ours. But they're not people. They're animals. They don't need our love. All they need is food and sex, not necessarily in that order.

I respect people who do what they believe to be the right thing (or say what they believe) even if others don't agree with it.
I don't think it is anthropomorphizing at all, it's more like not anthropocentrising stuff.


Let me be clear, I don't think we need to be mean to animals. I'm happy there are animal cruelty laws. I have four cats, eight rats and a dog and I love them all dearly. But in the end they aren't philosophers or farmers or industrialists or lawyers or teachers.

They're just animals.

Nobody is claiming they are other than "just animals". What people disagree about is the value of being such as they are. They feel pain and for many people, this is enough to consider not doing stuff that would cause them suffering, even if it would benefit others who might belong to the human species. You say you believe it is possible to be mean to animals, therefore I figure you believe animals can feel pain and can suffer, even though they are "just animals".

[Jack Squat]

I understand the difference, but even if he meant only to call a certain group of people insane who happen to believe in animal rights, it still is rather insulting to people who believe in what the "insane" people are doing and how they are doing it.

Not really. There's 'insane' people in just about every group out there, and like it or not, they get the most publicity.

If it's insulting to you that there's a bad image of a group you're in, you should try and change the image of the group. Just sitting around and saying "that's insulting to me" doesn't do a very effective job of doing this.

If you want to push forward your cause, you have to deal with it and say "Listen, those people don't represent most of us, in fact, the majority of us are well informed, rational people. I think/stand for/believe/support x because, p,q, and r." The caveat is that p,q, and r do need to be thought out, sensible arguments, otherwise you don't really separate yourself from the crazies.

[Ichneumon]

Not really. There's 'insane' people in just about every group out there, and like it or not, they get the most publicity.

If it's insulting to you that there's a bad image of a group you're in, you should try and change the image of the group. Just sitting around and saying "that's insulting to me" doesn't do a very effective job of doing this.

If you want to push forward your cause, you have to deal with it and say "Listen, those people don't represent most of us, in fact, the majority of us are well informed, rational people. I think/stand for/believe/support x because, p,q, and r." The caveat is that p,q, and r do need to be thought out, sensible arguments, otherwise you don't really separate yourself from the crazies.

I know there are people who give groups a bad name, in almost every group.

I'm however trying to say that some people actually believe in the people others would identify as "the crazies". I am talking exactly about the people others would say give "the group" a bad name, like PETA or ALF. To call them, who might as well be forum members, insane for what they are doing or what they believe, is insulting.

[Gamerlord]

Look, when I mean "insane" I mean the rather extreme people who go as far as say "We should make eating meat illegal"


I mean, how I read it was "Listen, I love eating meat, and I'm not at all concerned about any ramifications of animal raising or global warming, but eating something alive is nuts"

Yes, that is what I meant.

[Ichneumon]

Look, when I mean "insane" I mean the rather extreme people who go as far as say "We should make eating meat illegal"

I know exactly who you mean, but that doesn't change my point. I think calling anyone insane, only because you very much disagree with what they are doing, is not a very courteous thing to do. Even the extremists don't deserve to be insulted by being called insane.

[Gamerlord]

Okay, so it was rude, I apologize.

[Ichneumon]

Okay, so it was rude, I apologize.

Apology accepted.

[Project_Mayhem]

Yeah, that was an ... unappealing dish. I fall into the 'yeah-I-eat-meat-but-thats-a-bit-mean' group.

Also, to add to the insane extremists argument, I would like to point out the anti animal testing group over here in England that dug up and stole the body some guy's nan. I think thats the kind of person he's talking about

[Gorgondantess]

Y'know, the worst animal cruelty I've ever seen is from domesticated animals. My cats do their best to keep the birds they catch alive as long as possible: one of them disembowels it, then tosses it in the air and catches it again as it feebly clings to its last vestiges of life. I once watched a dog slowly, langourously munch on a still living, still shrieking bird, for several minutes. Whenever I tried to go out and stop her, she ran, to continue her morbid work.
Yes, it's very sad. But actually, many of these things are done because, believe it or not, it makes the food taste better.
I met a man who traveled through some part of asia once. He met a culture there that would, when they wanted to eat a pig, slit its belly open and tear out its still beating heart. The man watched, and partook in eating the pig. He said it was the best pork he ever had.
Julia Child reccommends, when cooking lobsters, to throw them in (alive) in boiling water. They scream.
Fish that's been dead for 15 minutes before you cook it isn't as good as fish that died right before you cook it. I can deduce, then, that fish that dies as you cook it would be quite delicious.

As a lover of fine dining and delicious food, I support these things, knowing that it leads to greater artistry in the food, and it's not nearly as bad as something my adorable, sweet, cuddly kitty does every week. Of course, doing it for the novelty rather than better food, I frown upon. That's needlessly cruel.:smallyuk:

[Mystic Muse]

Even the extremists don't deserve to be insulted by being called insane.

That depends on how extreme these extremists are.

I'm also in the "I eat meat but that's just cruel" camp.

[SurlySeraph]

@SurlySeraph: Did you always have that kitten in your avatar's hand? Or did I only just notice it?:smallconfused:

Yes, it's always been there. My signature wouldn't mean much without it.


But actually, many of these things are done because, believe it or not, it makes the food taste better.
I met a man who traveled through some part of asia once. He met a culture there that would, when they wanted to eat a pig, slit its belly open and tear out its still beating heart. The man watched, and partook in eating the pig. He said it was the best pork he ever had.
Julia Child reccommends, when cooking lobsters, to throw them in (alive) in boiling water. They scream.
Fish that's been dead for 15 minutes before you cook it isn't as good as fish that died right before you cook it. I can deduce, then, that fish that dies as you cook it would be quite delicious.

As a lover of fine dining and delicious food, I support these things, knowing that it leads to greater artistry in the food, and it's not nearly as bad as something my adorable, sweet, cuddly kitty does every week. Of course, doing it for the novelty rather than better food, I frown upon. That's needlessly cruel.:smallyuk:

Even if you can tell the taste difference between fish that died right before you cooked it and fish that's dying as you eat it - which I strongly doubt I could - is such a small difference worth doing it for? And wouldn't the fish's still-living behavior have some negative impact on the experience of eating it? Even if I was comfortable with eating a still-living fish, I'd think the mechanics of keeping it still on the plate, its muscular twitching interfering with cutting pieces off, the gasping of its gills, and its moving eyes would make doing so difficult and unpleasant. I can't see how the taste improvement from three minutes of death would improve the eating experience enough to outweigh the effort required to eat an animal in its death throes.

[Gamerlord]

Yeah, that was an ... unappealing dish. I fall into the 'yeah-I-eat-meat-but-thats-a-bit-mean' group.

Also, to add to the insane extremists argument, I would like to point out the anti animal testing group over here in England that dug up and stole the body some guy's nan. I think thats the kind of person he's talking about

Yeah I heard about that, that is also what I meant by extreme, those who go to violent or unlawful means.

[Hannes]

Anyone here who think animal torture is okay?
'cause, you know, I totally disagree.

[Gamerlord]

Define what you mean by torture.

[Hannes]

Torture: willingly causing pain to a being for the sake of causing it. Possibly taking glee in it.

[Gamerlord]

That is severely unethical by any cultural standard I know of, I don't think its okay, I consider torture a severe sin.

[Hannes]

That doesn't mean kids won't do it. There have been cases where people do it to pets.

[Escef]

Causing pain for the sake of causing pain is distasteful, at the least. Now, I admit that humans have not historically been the nicest animals on earth (there was a point in time in just about every culture that a baby with a birth defect would be left to die of exposure), but most cultures have left that behind. Some have not. Traditionally, animals have been viewed more like objects or obstacles. The level of recognition given to an animals comfort, even in death, by modern society is unprecedented.

As for the practice of eating the fish cooked, yet still alive, I think it is strange. I heard about it years ago, it's nothing new. Why someone would want to do it is beyond me. Honestly, I'd wager that after a reasonably brief period of time the fish is no longer aware of any pain. It is likely either in deep shock or unconscious.

I'm rather neutral on this particular item. I do feel that food animals should be raised and killed in as humane a manner as feasible. But it's not my place to push another culture into honoring my beliefs. So long as their practice is done where it is legal, I am content by simply disapproving and going on with my business.

[Hannes]

*nip*
(there was a point in time in just about every culture that a baby with a birth defect would be left to die of exposure)*snip*

Don't animals do this?

Also, at that point of time it was necessary for survival. With less than 800 million human beings on the face of the earth (VERY, VERY rough guess, no accurate numbers are really possible) and in an environment where you have to work all the time to survive, it was needed in order to ensure the survival of the whole family.

Also, no medicine.

[Ichneumon]

Torture: willingly causing pain to a being for the sake of causing it. Possibly taking glee in it.

What about cases in which it isn't actually about causing them pain, but where the pain is merely an unavoidable by-product. For example hitting a dog constantly on his/her head with a big stick because you get sexually aroused by the sound the dog is producing when you do that. Would you consider that wrong? And if so, why?

[Gamerlord]

That doesn't mean kids won't do it. There have been cases where people do it to pets.

A child doesn't know fully right from wrong, they haven't been taught yet by their parents or guardian proper morals.

[Hannes]

A child doesn't know fully right from wrong, they haven't been taught yet by their parents or guardian proper morals.
Kids as in 12-17, not kids as in 2-10


What about cases in which it isn't actually about causing them pain, but where the pain is merely an unavoidable by-product. For example hitting a dog constantly on his/her head with a big stick because you get sexually aroused by the sound the dog is producing when you do that. Would you consider that wrong? And if so, why?

Don't get straw-man on me, mister.

It's still about causing them pain for any other reason than ending it, eg. pulling a stick out of his body in order to cure him etc etc etc.

[Gamerlord]

Ah I see, those people are sick,sick, fellows.

[MountainKing]

Right, this is not very insulting at all and not very much fulfilling "Trog's prophecy". :smallsigh:

Speaking strictly as someone who has been hit in the back head with a two by four by just such a person as whom could be described as "a crazy animal rights activist", on a SIDEWALK, while discussing what sounds good for lunch with a friend, I frankly think that, if it's directed at the right person, it has every right being every bit as insulting as humanly possible. In fact, by extension, I firmly believe that individuals whom can be described as a "crazy animal rights activist" are no better than say, "crazy fundamentalists" to other people.

No matter what, every group with an opinion has extremists who don't care that there's a right way to tell someone they're wrong, and a wrong way to tell someone they're wrong. The guy who opted to whack me across the back of the head with a piece of lumber? He was lucky I regained enough of my senses to put my friend in a full nelson before he *curb stomped* the outrageous little freak... and we still ate cheeseburgers for lunch.

Now, in perhaps better keeping with the thread, I personally would rather eat my food dead, but, I have no right to tell somebody from another culture that they're doing things wrong. I think it ultimately comes down to just how cultural particular dish happens to be, and how long-standing a tradition it happens to be. If I were a visitor in China, and my hosts happened to place a still live, yet cooked fish in front of me, I would still eat it. Why?

Because to be completely frank, the only thing odd about that dish, to me, was that it's mouth was moving. Otherwise, it looked delicious, and I have no problems with that.

In the exact same vein, what are the Playgrounders' thoughts on eating lobster?

[Gamerlord]

Not much of a fan of seafood, chicken is yummier.

[CoffeeIncluded]

*Sigh* I really didn't want to turn this into a potential flame war.

And just so you know: I don't approve of PETA. Ideas, yes (Except for the really messed up ones). Methods? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I know that this doesn't even come close to showing the full potential of human cruelty, but every little bit...

...And I'm going to spend most of Sunday afternoon working with about 150 abused dogs who've never been loved. "Sad" doesn't even begin to describe it.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hug my puppy now.

And my thoughts on lobster? I don't eat it; I'm Jewish.

But even if I weren't, I still wouldn't eat it. I'm not a vegetarian, but I refuse to eat lamb or veal.

[Hannes]

*Sigh* I really didn't want to turn this into a potential flame war.


It's the internet, everything is a potential flame war. This one has a potential of... 15%, this being the Playground.

Right, fellas? *moves hand to hip*
Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to vigilante mod, I am trying to tell everyone to take it cool and not get too heated in this discussion.

[Gamerlord]

In the playground, all topics have a less then 30% chance to start a flame war, if political or religious, increase by 60%, if 4e discussion, increase by 40%.

[MountainKing]

In the playground, all topics have a less then 30% chance to start a flame war, if political or religious, increase by 60%, if 4e discussion, increase by 40%.

Heh, actually, I believe political and religious discussions get shut down, and warnings/bannings get handed out, as per the forum rules. :smalltongue:

All the same, I don't think the thread has really erupted into any kind of flaming; I know I myself haven't attempted to say anything in an especially inflammatory manner, and the one personal seeming dispute was resolved with a simple apology. *shrug*

As for me, I suppose I'll settle into the relatively small group of people who think they'd eat the fish, cooked, albeit live.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I know it hasn't, but I'm worried about it.

[Ichneumon]

*Sigh* I really didn't want to turn this into a potential flame war.

Don't worry. I don't think anyone wants or wanted to turn things into a flame war.

I don't think the rights of individuals (human or non-human) are "cultural" in a sense that we should respect violations of those rights on the basis of them being someone's culture. Just like we don't accept child labour because it would be cultural/traditional to do so.

I know some people think differently about this and it is only natural that people utter their different opinions and discussions extrapolate. I don't think this discussion turned bad at all.

I think it would be against the forum rules to say I approve of the ALF, but I do approve of PETA, fully in ideas, methods most of the times.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I know, I've just seen these things turn bad before...

[Kalbron]

I used to be a misanthropic teenager that hated the world too. Then I realised that animals are far bigger *******s than humans could even attempt to be because we're more likely to have empathy for creatures different from us, compared with animals who are likely only to have empathy for their own species or those they identify with as "pack" or "kin".

For reference see:
- Chimp attacks on humans.
- Chimp attacks on other animals. (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I), plus: Chimps going to war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XuXi3mqYM))
- Domesticated cats with anything they could hunt.
- Domesticated large dogs with smaller dogs.
- Snakes eating animals alive.
- Hyenas. (NMS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qeN9IqmZpM), NMS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeuN7YAvdwc))
- Basically every single animal in existance.

Also, to the comment that someone made about their friends being idiots because of dolphins raping and killing people? Guess what? Much like humans and chimps, dolphins rape and kill their own for no reason.

Humans are not worse than animals. In many ways they are better simply because they can declare their actions to be wrong!

[Gamerlord]

This is GITP, a lone bulwark against the wild wastelands of the internet, a marble city fending off barbarian hordes, A free, safe land!

[Ichneumon]

This is GITP, a lone bulwark against the wild wastelands of the internet, a marble city fending off barbarian hordes, A free, safe land!

Well, one would hope so.

[Escef]

Don't animals do this?

Also, at that point of time it was necessary for survival. With less than 800 million human beings on the face of the earth (VERY, VERY rough guess, no accurate numbers are really possible) and in an environment where you have to work all the time to survive, it was needed in order to ensure the survival of the whole family.

Also, no medicine.

This was done as recently as a few hundred years ago. Medicine is not a modern invention. Hell, brain surgery isn't even a modern invention. We understand it all better today, we even know why it works.

[CoffeeIncluded]

This is GITP, a lone bulwark against the wild wastelands of the internet, a marble city fending off barbarian hordes, A free, safe land!

I know. And I've been stranded in the wilderness, and am still trying to readjust to civilization.

[Kalbron]

This is GITP, a lone bulwark against the wild wastelands of the internet, a marble city fending off barbarian hordes, A free, safe land!

And this is false propaganda. The only reason that GITP is any better than other parts of the internet is because the rules are rather strict and the mods are (justifiably) trigger happy. :smalltongue:

[Gamerlord]

Exactly! Our elite troops fend off the savages, allowing only the wise through!

[Hannes]

This was done as recently as a few hundred years ago. Medicine is not a modern invention. Hell, brain surgery isn't even a modern invention. We understand it all better today, we even know why it works.

Medicine that can work with child paralysis and other such things is, AFAIK, relatively new.

[Kalbron]

Exactly! Our elite troops fend off the savages, allowing only the wise through!

You mean the elite troops let all the barbarians in and only those above a certain level of intelligence survive the carnage. They're still barbarians though and prone to fits of internet-style actions.

[Ichneumon]

You mean the elite troops let all the barbarians in and only those above a certain level of intelligence survive the carnage. They're still barbarians though and prone to fits of internet-style actions.

We can only give them time to learn, as once we were the same as them, were we not?

[Adlan]

Julia Child reccommends, when cooking lobsters, to throw them in (alive) in boiling water. They scream.

They scream because of purely mechanical reasons, dead lobsters scream too, due to the air escaping their rapidly heating carappace. They do not scream in the way we understand them to.

Which is not to say they don't feel pain, just that the screaming is unrelated.

I'd recommend placing the lobsters in a freezer first, this slows down their metabolism till they enter a comatose state and then you can boil them alive, in a kinder, gentler way.

Or you can jam a knife inbetween the plates of their carapace, just behind their brain, and sever their spinal colunm, killing them near instantly.



Don't worry about the prospect of a flame war, the Mods in the Playground are topnotch, and tend to shut down such things pretty well. People in the playground are generally pretty good about such topics, even ones as deceive as this.

To whomever wouldn't eat lamb or veal? Why not? Just the age of the animal?

I understand the cruelty issue with veal crates, but Lamb? Cheapest way to raise a lamb is still put a pregnent sheep on the edge of a mountain and come back later.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I can't eat a baby animal if I have a choice in the matter.

[Inhuman Bot]

I can't eat a baby animal if I have a choice in the matter.

Well, you ALLWAYS have a choice on matters like that.

[Anteros]

It's a fish. We don't even know if fish possess the neurological capacity for pain. There are studies that indicate both ways.

Personally I would avoid eating something like this, but I hardly believe it makes me superior to those who do eat it.


My question is is if you had a choice would you want to see someone eating you while you were still alive or would you rather be killed then eaten? Dont bother saying none of the above thats not one of the questions, me personally id rather not see myself get eaten thank you very much, and most animals do kill their prey before eating it.

This I don't understand. There is a huge difference between hurting something that is capable of actual thought and recognizing pain than there is in eating a fish. If they were doing this to a more intelligent animal, such as a dog, you may have a point. I've never seen any study to indicate that fish can comprehend abstracts such as fear on anything more than an instinctive level.

It's not as if these people are eating this fish this way simply because they enjoy causing suffering. Presumably, most of them are eating it this way because they believe it to taste superior.

[Escef]

Medicine that can work with child paralysis and other such things is, AFAIK, relatively new.

But medicine itself is not. Perhaps I was too literal? Or you too vague? Or perhaps a bit of both? But, yes, if you mean things like, say, correcting club-foot, that is fairly recent.


Or you can jam a knife inbetween the plates of their carapace, just behind their brain, and sever their spinal colunm, killing them near instantly.

Last I checked, invertebrates do not have spinal columns. :smalltongue: But I know what you're getting at. And last I heard the preferred way to cook lobster was to put it in a pan or pot of cool/cold water and bring it to a slow boil. The lobster will pass out and die relaxed, making the meat more tender. Just dropping it into boiling water will trigger a panic/pain reaction, the meat will be tougher because the lobster tensed up as it died.

[Gamerlord]

I can't eat a baby animal if I have a choice in the matter.
I only eat adult animals, particularly chicken.

[Escef]

I only eat adult animals, particularly chicken.

I was going to make a comment about eggs, but technically the eggs we eat aren't fertilized. I'll go no further on that. :smallamused:

[pendell]

While we're discussing cruelty ..

I used to not eat lobster because the need to boil them alive. However, I have since learned that my local restaurant kills the lobsters near painlessly with a swift stab with a fork before cooking and eating them. I'm not fully comfortable about shrimps or clam strips yet, but decided it hasn't crossed the cruelty threshold to prevent me eating them.

One I will not eat is foie gras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras) duck. Deliberately gorging it to that size? Awful.

I am an omnivore. Since I cannot subsist on sunlight, I must eat living things in order to survive. I include plants and animals in my diet. But I prefer it be done without unnecessary cruelty, if possible.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Slayn82]

Well, let me add that only eating meat from adult animals don't gives a garantee of not causing a lot of pain to it. Bad acomodations in farms or during the transport to the slaughterhouse ( such a good name) cause a lot of suffering to them, and consider that most of the food you ate isn't produced locally.

Animals are very cruel with their preys, and those who kill them before eating just do so to make sure it doesn't escape or fight back. In most cases, the prey dies during the eating process, as it is consumed alive. Pain is a part of life.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the lives of most animals is not majestous. In the wild, they get hurt, get diseases, have to deal with food shortages or be hunted by predators, get in life or death battles with others of their kinds for territory, mates and food - their life expectancy is much shorter than in captivity. The nature mills the weak ones, and even apt specimens are subject to bad luck... Something the naturalist movement often ignores. And for shock, i remember seeing a bunch of ants eating a crab once. It's not pretty.

Tacking instance in the moral plane, there are no inate rights, what exist is international laws that are enforced for the better treatment of people and animals. But at with degree? Whales are hunted in name of research, if only to see what it tastes like... Often, the hunting ships dare to enter Brazilian's National protected waters to hunt the Whales while they are in the mating season. Who are the whalers? Countries like Japan, Norway and Finland. Yes, those countries are very interested in that research.:smallsigh: Well, how much papers have they produced about the topic? Where is the groundbreaking research? How many phd's go in those ships? Come on, guess...

In the end, im up with Mountainking, and GorgonDantess (Cthullu itp :smalleek:) - i would eat the fish. Even if it was alive and then sliced, and then served raw, i would eat it. Being fried is not pleasant way to go, but neither is being sufocated outside water as often happen, eaten or dying as a whole, i guess. Have some of you killed a chicken latelly? Bodies can move often way beyond were they lost the conciousness, by spasms.

Lobster is tasty, and so is Crab and Oyster. And if you freeze it, it's taste often goes wrong, thus i agree that it's better not eating it at all. So, either raw or boyled, but fresh.

CoffeeIncluded, give as much love as you can to the puppies. And remember people to take their pets to surgery to prevent such a thing from keep happening. Most people can be convinced to do it, the trouble are those stubborn who don't and then mistreat their pets. But i have the view that as a whole, mankind is getting better. But there's still much work to do.

[AtomicKitKat]

Consumption by snake: You're either suffocated by having your lung capacity shrunken with every exhale, or you're paralysed, or your blood(and everything it comes in contact with) starts turning into slush. Either way, you can no longer move, but you can feel. Now, assuming your eyes haven't turned to slush yet, you're staring down a gullet. It's massive, bigger than your head. Tiny fangs prick into your face, then your neck, all the way down your body, for the next 2 hours, as the creature works its jaws around your entire form. You will now spend the next week or so being bathed in acid and enzymes, as the creature attempts to digest every last piece of you.

Disclaimer: I might still eat this, but I might very well stun it before doing so, as thrashing meals are not exactly conducive to a clean table.

PS: Removing the face from the food is why so many Westerners have no qualms about eating say, a hamburger, but squirm when faced with a fish. Also why so many seem to have a problem with eating "variety meats". Internal organs are a greater sign of life than raw muscle/fat tissue.

PPS: I'm a survivalist at heart. If I can kill it(without destroying too much of it and it's not poisonous or something that eats filth and crap) and I'm hungry, I'll probably eat it.

[Perenelle]

.... :smallfrown: that video almost made me cry. seriously.
I wanted to like... reach into the computer and save the fish and put him in some water... Its so sad. :smallfrown: ='( think about how that fish is feeling. eaten alive must be extremely painful. on top of not being able to breath..

[SurlySeraph]

Personally, I'd try to cut the fish's spine with my knife before eating it. I don't think I could eat it alive without significant pressure, and I definitely wouldn't want to.


It's a fish. We don't even know if fish possess the neurological capacity for pain. There are studies that indicate both ways.

Having raised a few dozen fish, I'm pretty confident in saying they can feel pain. Pain was probably one of the first neurological responses to evolve, since it's useful for any animal capable of moving and is very useful for keeping the animal alive. And I'd say they definitely exhibit fear of a kind; just put a bunch of guppies in a tank with a large cichlid and see what they do. I've seen injured fish hiding behind a rock and trembling when another approaches. I've seen particularly skittish fish zipping as fast as they can back and forth across the tank, banging into rocks and walls, when someone makes a sudden movement near the tank. That may not be "fear" in the human sense, but it certainly looks like fear.

[Kiren]

I really do not see the point in eating a partially cooked fish that's still alive, its very cruel and sad. I'm not at all against the eating of meat, but a fish still breathing on your plate is too much.

[Jack Squat]

In the exact same vein, what are the Playgrounders' thoughts on eating lobster?

Am I eating it alive? If so, I'll pass, otherwise I'm fine with it. They die about instantly when dropped in boiling water, and that "screaming" happens well after they're dead.

Of course, I let fish lay around for hours suffocating while putting them into a hypothermic state (simple terms: I toss fish onto ice after I catch them). I have all my life, and I'm fine with it. I'm going to eat it, so it's dying has a purpose.

[Anteros]

Personally, I'd try to cut the fish's spine with my knife before eating it. I don't think I could eat it alive without significant pressure, and I definitely wouldn't want to.



Having raised a few dozen fish, I'm pretty confident in saying they can feel pain. Pain was probably one of the first neurological responses to evolve, since it's useful for any animal capable of moving and is very useful for keeping the animal alive. And I'd say they definitely exhibit fear of a kind; just put a bunch of guppies in a tank with a large cichlid and see what they do. I've seen injured fish hiding behind a rock and trembling when another approaches. I've seen particularly skittish fish zipping as fast as they can back and forth across the tank, banging into rocks and walls, when someone makes a sudden movement near the tank. That may not be "fear" in the human sense, but it certainly looks like fear.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, because no one knows conclusively...but "looks like fear" is not the same as "feels fear". A cockroach will scatter when you turn on a light. Is it feeling fear? Probably not. It's simply an instinctive reaction in order to protect itself.

Even certain types of plant will actually shy away from your touch. It doesn't mean that the plant is afraid of your touch. It's simply an evolutionary mechanism that causes the organism to react to certain stimuli accordingly. It does not necessarily indicate intelligence.

[Boo]

I don't mind the fish video. I kinda felt bad for it, yeah, but it's not something overly wrong in the world.

However, the videos linked by Ikari...
:eek: :smallfrown:
I did not know that was going on. That is bloody appalling! I don't care what culture it is, that's insane AND wrong! Skinning an animal alive--some are still alive after being completely skinned!! WTF!! Club it to death quickly, then skin it at the very least! It's not hard! I don't care if "it's easier to skin them while they're alive", it's bloody wrong!

Dammit.

[Gitman00]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, because no one knows conclusively...but "looks like fear" is not the same as "feels fear". A cockroach will scatter when you turn on a light. Is it feeling fear? Probably not. It's simply an instinctive reaction in order to protect itself.

Even certain types of plant will actually shy away from your touch. It doesn't mean that the plant is afraid of your touch. It's simply an evolutionary mechanism that causes the organism to react to certain stimuli accordingly. It does not necessarily indicate intelligence.

Ditto, and the same thing with pain. Pain as a neurological reaction to stimuli is not the same as pain experienced by a self-aware creature. I don't advocate cruelty to animals, but we have to put it in perspective. A fish does not process pain or fear in the same way as a human.

Human beings are omnivores and predators. We are designed as such, from our binocular vision to our multi-functional teeth to our digestive tract to our enormous physical stamina. I see no reason to apologize for it. It's the way I was made.

Human beings are the only ones who feel bad about killing. Why? Because we're the only ones who feel, (in that sense) at all.

[Ichneumon]

Human beings are the only ones who feel bad about killing.

What makes you think that?

[pendell]

What makes you think that?


I'm listening, Ichneumon. I've never seen myself, nor heard nor read, of any predator besides man showing remorse about killing.

I have, however, seen my wife's parakeets at work. One of them became sick, and the other one methodically pecked it to death -- or would have if my wife hadn't intervened. Evidently parakeets do not stomach weakness in their flock, which is why parakeets hide sickness until they're nearly dead.

I have also seen my wife bring home a new parakeet to her little group -- and the female coolly and methodically bit the new guy's toe off, preventing him from ever successfully breeding.

The animals I have seen in action have never shown anything *I* would perceive as remorse or pity. But I'm assuming you have evidence to the contrary. If so, I am listening ... well, reading.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gullara]

I don't mind the fish video. I kinda felt bad for it, yeah, but it's not something overly wrong in the world.

However, the videos linked by Ikari...
:eek: :smallfrown:
I did not know that was going on. That is bloody appalling! I don't care what culture it is, that's insane AND wrong! Skinning an animal alive--some are still alive after being completely skinned!! WTF!! Club it to death quickly, then skin it at the very least! It's not hard! I don't care if "it's easier to skin them while they're alive", it's bloody wrong!

Dammit.

Thats just sick. Animal cruelty is terrible, and when I say animal cruelty I mean something like the above. I don't have any problems with killing animals for practical purposes, but that, its awful.

[Ichneumon]

I've never *seen* human beings show remorse for someone they killed, although of course lots of times of someone who got killed by someone else. I've seen monkeys care for the lives of others and not wanting them killed, even though they'd never seen that individual before or had anything to gain from that individual.

[Gullara]

I've never *seen* human beings show remorse for someone they killed, although of course lots of times of someone who got killed by someone else. I've seen monkeys care for the lives of others and not wanting them killed, even though they'd never seen that individual before or had anything to gain from that individual.

Were the said monkeys raised by humans?

[golentan]

Ditto, and the same thing with pain. Pain as a neurological reaction to stimuli is not the same as pain experienced by a self-aware creature.

Source? I've worked a lot with animals, there's no appreciable difference in my reaction to theirs. A lot of creatures are self aware, and have personalities even if they don't qualify as people. I cared for a sunfish with a better sense of slapstick then the three stooges. Brain the size of a walnut, but great sense of humor.


I don't advocate cruelty to animals, but we have to put it in perspective. A fish does not process pain or fear in the same way as a human.

Even if true, that doesn't make it right. You're still inflicting pain and fear. While this is acceptable under certain circumstances (out of necessity), when it's done for amusement is not one of them.


Human beings are omnivores and predators. We are designed as such, from our binocular vision to our multi-functional teeth to our digestive tract to our enormous physical stamina. I see no reason to apologize for it. It's the way I was made.

This, and posts like it previously, are what are known as straw men arguments. Nobody is asking you to. The vast majority of replies to this have NOT advocated not eating meat. Most of them have commented something to the effect that they eat meat but this is wrong. They have advocated not torturing to eat meat. And yeah, it's a hard line to draw. But it still should be done in my opinion.


Human beings are the only ones who feel bad about killing. Why? Because we're the only ones who feel, (in that sense) at all.

Disagree. My dog got jumped by a raccoon. The raccoon died, and the dog sulked for days. Chimps have morals, as do dolphins. An octopus is a weird one. If they kill something themselves they won't feel any sort of evident remorse. But they'll treat other dead with more care.

Just because there's a communication barrier, just because something is less than human, doesn't mean it's not at least aware. It is a sliding scale, and claiming otherwise I think is wrong unless you want to draw the line at anything with a central nervous system. I don't think the fish deserves the same consideration as a chicken, which doesn't deserve the same consideration as a pig, which in turn doesn't deserve the considerations owed a human. But the fish deserves at the very minimum the treatment owed all living creatures: to not be tortured to death for amusement.

[Ikialev]

I've never *seen* human beings show remorse for someone they killed, although of course lots of times of someone who got killed by someone else.
Maybe only in case of animals.

[Gpope]

I've never *seen* human beings show remorse for someone they killed, although of course lots of times of someone who got killed by someone else.

What? The overwhelming majority of people I've seen that were responsible for killing someone showed tremendous remorse. Whether or not you believe their shows of remorse is up to you, but if you're so misanthropic that you automatically discount displays of remorse then you can't really use lack of remorse as justification for the misanthropy that causes you to perceive a lack of remorse.

I guess if I was served a still-living cooked fish I might as well go ahead and eat it--waste not. I guess might try to put it out of its misery first, although I'm kind of shaky on fish biology; I'd assume severing the spinal cord would be a good place to start, but I don't know the exact effects that would have.

I'm still disturbed at the idea of someone deliberately ordering this, though. I appreciate good food, but food snobbery irritates me even when it doesn't involve deliberately torturing a helpless creature. "Maybe it doesn't feel pain!" doesn't really cut it for me. It's kind of like The Box, except you get no tangible benefit. If you were given the choice of pushing a button that may or may not torture a creature capable of understanding pain just so you can pretend to have an extra snazzy dinner, why on earth would you push that button?

[Solaris]

I've never *seen* human beings show remorse for someone they killed, although of course lots of times of someone who got killed by someone else. I've seen monkeys care for the lives of others and not wanting them killed, even though they'd never seen that individual before or had anything to gain from that individual.

I have. Just about everyone I know who's killed someone (... and I remember a time in my life when that was less than ten percent of my social circle...) has, at one point or another, expressed remorse for having had to do it. The look in a certain NCO's face as he was telling me about how easy it is to kill children certainly told me clearly enough he deeply wished he could have not had to do that.
So. Exactly how many killers have you seen? Unless the answer is "A lot", kindly refrain from making statements that imply we, as a species, are coldblooded murderers and you are somehow better than the rest of us. It gets real old.

[Ichneumon]

Exactly how many killers have you seen? Unless the answer is "A lot", kindly refrain from making statements that imply we, as a species, are coldblooded murderers and you are somehow better than the rest of us. It gets real old.

Not a lot, though certainly quite a few. I never made statements that implied that you (you in general) are coldblooded murderers or that I am shomehow better than all of you.

[Solaris]

Not a lot, though certainly quite a few. I never made statements that implied that you (you in general) are coldblooded murderers or that I am shomehow better than all of you.

Known 'em personally, or just the high-profile murderers you see in the media?

EDIT: I pick that attitude up from you a lot, but it seems you don't mean to. Sorry for readin' too much between the lines.

[Gpope]

Known 'em personally, or just the high-profile murderers you see in the media?

Many of whom do demonstrate remorse anyhow. (At least if you're including local media, although not all murder cases that attract national attention are psychos.)

[MountainKing]

He makes a perfectly sound point. There is a distinct and clear-cut difference between knowing somebody personally, being in tune with their emotions and trains of thought, and discussing with them a situation wherein they have killed somebody, and watching some fool in an orange jump suit crying for the sake of crying in front of a court room on television.

However, that leads into an entirely different discussion. However, in a related vein (to both what I just said, and the thread at hand), what I personally don't understand is how somebody can empathize with something that isn't one of its own. I feel angry, even bitter, about the irresponsible actions of some people on this planet (such as those who, say, use live dogs for shark bait, or whom breed pit bulls for fighting), but I simply don't understand. I understand that the relationship can be forged between a human and an animal, but that's because of what I feel is an inherent human instinct to nurture lesser things. The animal has no capacity for reciprocating the same care, save in some situations (such as, say, having a German Shepherd for a pet, taking good care of it, and when a burglar comes into the home, you are coincidentally saved by the dog's presence).

Ultimately, no matter how beneficial it may be to have such a situation work in a human's favor, it didn't do so out of any manner of consciousness or intellect. It was a bi-product of the animal acting on instinct. In the burglar/large dog scenario, there was a strange person entering the dog's territory, and they didn't belong, so the dog protected what it felt was its own.

Humans are humans. Animals are animals. We can worth together, but we'll never work *with* each other.

[Kalbron]

The animal has no capacity for reciprocating the same care, save in some situations (such as, say, having a German Shepherd for a pet, taking good care of it, and when a burglar comes into the home, you are coincidentally saved by the dog's presence).

Though I don't believe a lot of the baloney that comes out of the mouths of people seeking strict moral equivalence of animals with humans (seriously, go see my big post at the bottom of page 3, then look up similar links - animals are not nice and they're not anywhere near as good at empathy as humans!), I do take issue with this statement.

It's not so much coincidental as it is intentional. As far as what I've read has had to say on the matter, all our domesticated companion animals tend to be stuck in an eternal youth psychology of their kind - meaning that they'll always defer to their elders and the pack leader, ie: the humans in their "pack"/family. So it's not due to fate/chance that the dog will protect the house, it's due to the fact that this stranger is violating pack territory, the pack leaders are resting, and so it falls to the dog to pick up the slack.

However this only works for species that have been domesticated and changed through thousands of years of evolution alongside humans. See: all the attacks by circus animals on their trainers, no matter how kind their trainers and no matter if the animal was raised by the trainer. Instinctual violence can only really be suppressed through the lengthy domestication process, and even then it's not perfect.

[Ichneumon]

Known 'em personally, or just the high-profile murderers you see in the media?

Not personally personally, as in friends or such. So, I'd answer no.


I pick that attitude up from you a lot, but it seems you don't mean to. Sorry for readin' too much between the lines.

You do? That's new to me. I don't believe I treat others as being inferior to me or give them (or their right to have an opinions) less respect than they deserve, even though I do believe, when talking in this context, that it is absolutely wrong what they are doing. If I do give off that impression, it wasn't my intention. Could you tell me what exactly made you think that?

[TSGames]

...*Sigh* And people wonder at my slightly misanthropic nature...
There are so much darker things than a live fish being eaten. There is a saying amongst my people, "Never underestimate human depravity and human stupidity."

Human nature is not something to be shunned, but rather it is a dark truth that we all must bear. One can always close eyes and turn away from the truth, but only through realization of the darkness inherent in human nature can greater truths be revealed.

[AtomicKitKat]

Just to put things a little in perspective:

I once saw a documentary about the Kalahari Bushmen(the Koikoi, if memory serves). He shot a blowdart with some kind of drug that made the gazelle lethargic, then relentlessly pursued it till it dropped from exhaustion. Evidently, between the adrenaline and the lactic acid buildup, the meat is more tender or something. For some other cases, I'll assume that between making the animal struggle for its life, and making it expend all its energy, you get more tender flesh(but not as mushy as say, from an animal that never got a chance to exercise)

[Gitman00]

Source? I've worked a lot with animals, there's no appreciable difference in my reaction to theirs. A lot of creatures are self aware, and have personalities even if they don't qualify as people. I cared for a sunfish with a better sense of slapstick then the three stooges. Brain the size of a walnut, but great sense of humor.

I've also worked with a lot of animals. I used to train horses, and there was one who used to get a kick (pun intended) out of bucking me off his back into the mud. I swear the bastard laughed at me every time he did it. You're preaching to the choir here.


Even if true, that doesn't make it right. You're still inflicting pain and fear. While this is acceptable under certain circumstances (out of necessity), when it's done for amusement is not one of them.

Okay. *points at original post* Can you tell me where I advocate inflicting pain and fear for amusement?


This, and posts like it previously, are what are known as straw men arguments. Nobody is asking you to. The vast majority of replies to this have NOT advocated not eating meat. Most of them have commented something to the effect that they eat meat but this is wrong. They have advocated not torturing to eat meat. And yeah, it's a hard line to draw. But it still should be done in my opinion.

Well, if you recall, the main point of my post was, "Put it in perspective." I was mostly just incredulous that a predatory species is spending so much emotional energy over eating a fish. When I go freshwater fishing, I filet my catch alive before cooking it. I don't get any particular enjoyment out of causing pain to the creature, but it just tastes the best that way, and I don't feel bad about it.


Disagree. My dog got jumped by a raccoon. The raccoon died, and the dog sulked for days. Chimps have morals, as do dolphins. An octopus is a weird one. If they kill something themselves they won't feel any sort of evident remorse. But they'll treat other dead with more care.

Fair enough. Since it's a personal anecdote, I can't provide contradictory evidence to your dog's sense of remorse. I will, however, say that I have never seen a dog or a cat (or any other animal) show remorse about killing something other than its own species, and I have seen both kill for amusement. Ditto chimps and dolphins, both of which have been observed killing their own for amusement. But we're sorta getting off topic here.


Just because there's a communication barrier, just because something is less than human, doesn't mean it's not at least aware. It is a sliding scale, and claiming otherwise I think is wrong unless you want to draw the line at anything with a central nervous system. I don't think the fish deserves the same consideration as a chicken, which doesn't deserve the same consideration as a pig, which in turn doesn't deserve the considerations owed a human. But the fish deserves at the very minimum the treatment owed all living creatures: to not be tortured to death for amusement.

For someone who rails so strongly against straw man arguments, you sure like to use them. I specifically said that I do NOT advocate cruelty to animals. And I personally wouldn't eat this dish simply because I prefer my food dead before I eat it. :smallwink:

[Phae Nymna]

I'm bothered by groups like PETA and common critics of live fish served like this. It's a tradition routed in their culture. Who are we to criticize and villainize it? If you don't think it's right to cook a fish while keeping it alive even when served, you don't have to eat it.

[MountainKing]

Though I don't believe a lot of the baloney that comes out of the mouths of people seeking strict moral equivalence of animals with humans (seriously, go see my big post at the bottom of page 3, then look up similar links - animals are not nice and they're not anywhere near as good at empathy as humans!), I do take issue with this statement.

It's not so much coincidental as it is intentional. As far as what I've read has had to say on the matter, all our domesticated companion animals tend to be stuck in an eternal youth psychology of their kind - meaning that they'll always defer to their elders and the pack leader, ie: the humans in their "pack"/family. So it's not due to fate/chance that the dog will protect the house, it's due to the fact that this stranger is violating pack territory, the pack leaders are resting, and so it falls to the dog to pick up the slack.

However this only works for species that have been domesticated and changed through thousands of years of evolution alongside humans. See: all the attacks by circus animals on their trainers, no matter how kind their trainers and no matter if the animal was raised by the trainer. Instinctual violence can only really be suppressed through the lengthy domestication process, and even then it's not perfect.

We're saying the exact same thing, just in different words. I'm saying, "The dog is protecting its territory" and you're saying "The dog is protecting the pack's territory, but since the leaders of the pack are asleep, it falls to the dog to take care of it". Either way, you're looking at the same situation, regardless of how you approach it; the dog is protecting "its" territory. How we arrive at the territory being the dog's isn't relevant; whether the dog feels it is dominant, or the dog feels it's responsible for protecting the territory while the alphas are asleep, it's still protecting its territory.

[averagejoe]

I'm bothered by groups like PETA and common critics of live fish served like this. It's a tradition routed in their culture. Who are we to criticize and villainize it? If you don't think it's right to cook a fish while keeping it alive even when served, you don't have to eat it.

The implicit assumptions of this post bother me. It's not that I disagree with what you're trying to say, but, well... Look, I'll put it like this: if you don't think it's right to kidnap six year olds and use them as prostitutes then you don't have to have sex with them.

My point is that a person's desire to eat it or not is irrelevant. You don't eat something when you don't like it. You denounce something when it's morally reprehensible. At least, ideally.

[golentan]

I've also worked with a lot of animals. I used to train horses, and there was one who used to get a kick (pun intended) out of bucking me off his back into the mud. I swear the bastard laughed at me every time he did it. You're preaching to the choir here.[QUOTE]

Hehehe. Sorry, just imagining.
[QUOTE]Okay. *points at original post* Can you tell me where I advocate inflicting pain and fear for amusement?

You didn't. Explicitly. But you said that this has to be put in perspective, and implied that the brouhaha was silly and overblown. I disagree. I disagree strongly, in fact, because it's about pointless cruelty in general, with the fish as a strong example. I'm going to go ahead and say what I was trying to hint: Complacency is Affirmation.


Well, if you recall, the main point of my post was, "Put it in perspective." I was mostly just incredulous that a predatory species is spending so much emotional energy over eating a fish. When I go freshwater fishing, I filet my catch alive before cooking it. I don't get any particular enjoyment out of causing pain to the creature, but it just tastes the best that way, and I don't feel bad about it.

But that's less extreme then what we're talking here. It's still a reasonably quick death, as you do rapid and massive damage to the internal systems, including the head, yes? (I would assume you clean it in the traditional manner). And spending emotional energy, worrying about moral implications, is what humans DO. It's the thing that in my mind separates you from that fish, and to a lesser extent higher organisms. It's the reason I'm unwilling to kill humanity.


Fair enough. Since it's a personal anecdote, I can't provide contradictory evidence to your dog's sense of remorse. I will, however, say that I have never seen a dog or a cat (or any other animal) show remorse about killing something other than its own species, and I have seen both kill for amusement. Ditto chimps and dolphins, both of which have been observed killing their own for amusement. But we're sorta getting off topic here.

No, we're not. We're establishing a sliding scale. And yes, they kill their own kind, and kill for amusement. And they also save lives, and make moral decisions, and suffer afflictions of the mind. Those who kill wantonly and/or brutally can be declared immoral, (or dangerous, which I prefer, as it indicates less a judgement on an individual and their motives and more a judgement on their actions). Humans kill their own kind, see some of the above posts. And sometimes this is immoral, and more often not. See the above posts.

And humans aren't even predators. We're more like black bears or boars in the wild, while we prefer meat when it's available our natural diet is much, much more vegetable matter.


For someone who rails so strongly against straw man arguments, you sure like to use them. I specifically said that I do NOT advocate cruelty to animals. And I personally wouldn't eat this dish simply because I prefer my food dead before I eat it. :smallwink:

You did, but you did by complacency. I was railing in my posts against the particular strawman that moral judgement on cruelty is a referendum on eating meat. You were the last person to reference it, so I selected your post, but I was railing against that topic in general.

I'm not against killing. I have had to do it often, and I don't regret taking the actions I have. But I do regret that those actions were necessary, and I do regret that people died. Because I have done it so often, I know the damage it has done to me, and I would not want that to happen to others. I have never had to torture. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would have to. I have anyway, and I can tell you that the damage is far greater. Cruelty cheapens the soul, if I may borrow someone else's words. And that sliding scale I mentioned? The one you agreed existed? In my life, I sometimes find it very difficult to look at the people around me as more than animals. As in some way deserving of compassion. And I disagree it's okay to cross that line and move down that path, or to be complacent about such behavior being performed by others. Partly because I've been down the slippery slope.

I realize I have no ability to influence people who disagree. And I'm not some sort of crazed militant who's going to go out and force my views on others. But I will continue to argue when I see something I believe is wrong. I addressed it to you largely because I believe you (and similar posters to you) to be convinceable. I'm probably not expressing myself well, but that's my intent.

P.S.: @ MountainKing: Hey, what about humans defending their territory/loved ones? Where does that fall?

[MountainKing]

And humans aren't even predators. We're more like black bears or boars in the wild, while we prefer meat when it's available our natural diet is much, much more vegetable matter.

*snip*

P.S.: @ MountainKing: Hey, what about humans defending their territory/loved ones? Where does that fall?

And that explains the evolution of spears, bows, and other tools... how? As humans have evolved, humans have invented newer and more efficient methods of doing exactly one thing: killing prey. It's how we make up for our shortcomings in the predator world; where animals have claws and fangs, we have cunning and intellect.

That being said, I fail to see what humans protecting their loved ones has to do with anything. Humans who debase themselves by thinking in terms of territory, I feel, aren't especially awesome at being humans on the whole (note: Yes, this IS a blanket statement; I'm aware. It's also an opinion based on the kind of people who tend to think in terms of "territory", in my experience). If you're defending your home, you are defending your property; a collection of things (included the house you reside in) that you either paid for, or are paying for, as well as acknowledge higher human institutions for (i.e. paying taxes, following a neighborhood ruleset in the suburbs, paying insurance or a mortgage, city ordinances, state and federal laws, etc.), not your "territory".

I feel the term "territory" is inherently intended for describing things that are wild and/or unknown, or too vast to label a state/part of a confederacy, and the reason I feel this way is because I believe that people who defend "territory" are behaving no better than animals. There is an inherent beauty and grace to being human, at least to the human eye. If that weren't the case, we'd probably all be off buggering woodland creatures. The evil that men do comes down to a series of actions and inactions, and have no bearing on the fact that *being* human is beautiful, simply because we ARE superior to animals.

I think that answers what you were looking for... right?

[Incompleat]

I'm bothered by groups like PETA and common critics of live fish served like this. It's a tradition routed in their culture. Who are we to criticize and villainize it? If you don't think it's right to cook a fish while keeping it alive even when served, you don't have to eat it.
Well, it is a tradition rooted in our culture to freely criticize practices that we find objectionable :smallwink:.

I may be going on a tangent here, but "it's traditional" is not a sufficient justification for cruel or unfair practices, no matter how established they are.
Our own culture(s) have, in the past, followed traditions that most of us now recognize as abhorrent on every level: should our ancestors have maintained them, or denounce eventual criticisms coming from outside as "culturally insensitive"?

[Syka]

I would just like to say on the humans feeling remorse, that I HAVE seen that. A good friend of my boyfriends fell asleep at the wheel of his car and ended up killing his wife and 7 month old. He survived with nothing more than a few minor injuries. This was about 11 months ago. He suffers with it every day and if you don't think he'd give anything, including HIS life, to bring back his wife and child then you have such a poor opinion of humans nothing can make you think otherwise.

I have also known soldiers who have killed those they didn't know. There is a reason many soldiers returning from war have PTSD. For the vast majority of people, killing someone, or even just seeing it, is a horrific activity. You cannot use psychopaths to justify that you have never seen a human show remorse for killing another.

I haven't seen an animal show remorse, but I have also never been in that situation. I do know from my boyfriend that at least one of his dogs loved to catch voles. She'd bury them (dead) and eat them later. I doubt she ever showed remorse. On the otherhand, I don't think his other dog has ever caused anything more than a fly harm and would probably sulk. It's a difference of personality, but I do NOT think that it is remorse in the same way that humans feel it. I doubt it's feeling they did something wrong as a human feels it.

There are a few animals I would put on our sentients level, dolphins being one. Dogs are not one, though.

(I'll add, I think the eating-fish-alive is abhorrent to me, I do eat meat, and I think certain animal rights groups overstep a lot lot lot of lines and, yes, I do call them crazy at times. This does not mean I advocate torture or abuse of animals. But by turn, THAT doesn't mean I think most animals are on the same level as humans. I love animals, but despite the fact I feel my hamster has a strong desire to control the world, I realize she is still a hamster and likely just wants to kill me in my sleep. :smallwink:)

[AtomicKitKat]

I love animals, but despite the fact I feel my hamster has a strong desire to control the world, I realize she is still a hamster and likely just wants to kill me in my sleep. :smallwink:)

That's because she's not a genetically engineered white mouse with an abnormally large skull...:smallwink:

[Coidzor]

You cannot use psychopaths to justify that you have never seen a human show remorse for killing another.


Psychopaths are, after all, a very bad sample for qualities to subscribe to normal people.

Hell, it's pretty much in their definition that they're abnormal and create a moral deficit in the universe by existing.

[Syka]

Psychopaths are, after all, a very bad sample for qualities to subscribe to normal people.

Hell, it's pretty much in their definition that they're abnormal and create a moral deficit in the universe by existing.

Basically my point, lol. And I'd venture that many killers you see on tv during trials are either psychopaths, close to being one, or otherwise emotionally/mentally disturbed. You rarely see those who do so due to an accident or in self defense.

AKK, no...I think she is smart and cruel enough. I jsut think her time is spent plotting her escape and subsequent murder of me rather than conquering the world at the moment haha. She is a crazy mean little thing but I love her.