'man' feeds kitten to his pet snake
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
- Status
Except for mental proison. But that's a different debate and needs more research.
the best post yet!
I think it's a pretty horrible thing to do, but i'm in the same camp as those that think feeding any intelligent live animal to another is quite unnecessary. I owned a snake for 14 years and fed it rats that had been humanely killed (or at least, claimed to have been!) and it never turned its nose up at them. In the wild obviously things are different.
I'm fairly certain my friends pet rat is more intelligent than my pet cat too, so i don't see why it's more acceptable for them to be a live source of food.
I'm fairly certain my friends pet rat is more intelligent than my pet cat too, so i don't see why it's more acceptable for them to be a live source of food.
As you said, we have a society and in our society, it is wrong to do such a thing.
A cat isn't normal prey for a python. Herbivores are, and our society states that they should be killed before apart from in extreme circumstances.
I'm talking way more than just the initial video.
Also just becuase our society describes it as wrong doesn't make it so.
Goes back to the double standards and certain laws not based in any evidence at all.
I've also said that's fair enough when the laws are applied equally, that's on the first page.
The uproar how ever isn't correct, I've seen no such media witch hunts or uproar of the hundreds if not thousands of videos on YouTube. Again goes back to double standards of laws and public.
No logical restrictions?
Really did you just say that
Yes there is emotion, but there's also a hell of a lot of evidence as well. Who do you kill, who owns the body, health issues. Emotional from loved ones and I allow that. Just as I allow emotional laws for not eating your pet cat. But laws that ban any cat from being eaten. That's not the same.
As I said laws should be based on evidence and then when needed public opinion draws the line.
The point being, that you decided to bring up arguments that involved "emotional" laws, and tried to claim that it was all OK because they do it in other countries. Then you turn around and call other peoples arguments stupid when they do the same to you. You are the one with double standards, it's just that people have being trying to highlight it to you by upping the anty on the 'level' of emotional attachment.
Secondly, captivity and the wild are things quite apart, don't try and say it's all OK because that's what happens in nature. If this had been a nature video some people would have lol'd other would have expressed being upset, but that's nature. Sticking an animal in a Christmas themed video and letting it do what it does in nature is not right.
Always good to have the business side of it
lol.The point being, that you decided to bring up arguments that involved "emotional" laws, and tried to claim that it was all OK because they do it in other countries. Then you turn around and call other peoples arguments stupid when they do the same to you. You are the one with double standards, it's just that people have being trying to highlight it to you by upping the anty on the 'level' of emotional attachment.
Secondly, captivity and the wild are things quite apart, don't try and say it's all OK because that's what happens in nature. If this had been a nature video some people would have lol'd other would have expressed being upset, but that's nature. Sticking an animal in a Christmas themed video and letting it do what it does in nature is not right.
Always good to have the business side of it
I didn't say it was ok becuase they do it in other countries, you have that wrong for a start.
I do not have double standards in this issue. I want laws to be applied equally.
Yes captivity and wild are very different things never said otherwise
Already said video was wired and that he was doing it do bait a rise.
So perhaps rather than jumping to conclusion becuase I don't have the same views as you, you should actually read the posts. That way you might not be so far off the mark.
Always good to have the business side of it
it's the only side that matters
we do lots of unethical and immoral things on a world stage that are far worse than this but they make money and keep us supplied with cheap crap so we carry on.
I skim read the first 12 pages and I couldn't find you saying what I said you did
So you've either edited it out, OR I'm mistaken and you didn't say it d'oh.
The law is applied equally.
People care more about cats because it is a domesticated animal and millions of people have one as a pet. People like cats, not many people like rats so yes the cat video will create more of an emotional response.
There is plenty of scientific research relating to the Animal Welfare Act. Granted most of it available online relates to farmed animals but to say the law is purely based on emotion is incorrect.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 8,221
- Location
- North East
But why does that make a difference, other than legally?
Its not in most animal laws.
All ready given loads of examples.
No it's not wrong.
Why can't I farm and eat cats? What evidence or scientific research has that got? None. It's a law based on emotion as is a lot.
Why is fox hunting illegal, yet the report said other still legal methods cause just as much distress. Is that applied equally. No I don't think so.
I have said this about a billion times on here:
Morality is part of the law making process. It's undeniable and also necessary because the concept of harm is subjective and thus quantifying harm is entirely morally based. Most laws can be broken down into components of morality because there is no way of possibly quantifying harm.
The argument I always use to demonstrate this is that child pornography is illegal yet those viewing the images are not actually harming the child. The best you can do is make an utterly unconvincing 'supply and demand' argument (somehow saying that those viewing images are encouraging others to actually harm children - something again that is totally flimsy and added 2+2 to make 5). In reality we are making a moral decision to say that such material is repulsive and nobody should have access to it.
Some animals have human like characteristics and display intelligence unlike others. Are those animals more worthy of life than those that don't? We apply the exact same logic to say that humans are more worthy than other animals, so the answer is surely a resounding yes - a cat is more worthy of protection than a rat, a human more so than a cat.
With this said, can you please stop doing this:
It's childish and silly. If you don't understand somebodies point then ask them to rephrase it, don't say 'you don't have a point and you're rubbish', which is exactly how your posts are reading.
But please keep repeating yourself with no discussion or remarking on those points. That's always fun after the fith post of the same worded, no content post.
Aw, you just lurves the kitties don't you...
Perhaps if a lot of people agree with you there maybe a new business opportunity in your town - 'Kentucky Fried Kitty' anyone?
Of course, in some peoples strange worlds the kittens would have to be filmed being fried alive & then uploaded to the interweb for other peoples 'amusement'.
Last edited:
You can't farm and eat cats because it is a protected animal. Why? Because people have them as pets. If people started to commonly have chickens as domesticated pets they would become protected as well.
Regardless of what animal it is, if it is a vertebrate it is against the law to cause unnecessary suffering. If someone drowned a fox they would be convicted.
What is the report on legal methods you refer to?
Inverts don't generally have nociceptors.
I understand their point, I've replied to their point on numerouse occasion, they just carry on and post it again and again. At which point I will call it how I see it rediculuse and rubbish. They can not show any reson for the descions other than emotional why one animal should be protected more than another.
And what's wrong with that point I made. Apter saying for the fith time with out adding sandy thing and not responding to my points is exactly what I said.
Oh and a better argument would be digitaly made child pornography. People looking at real child porn create demand for the supply. So that isn't just based on emotion. It has some underlying substance.
Last edited:
And as I said laws based purly on such emotional attachment with out any basis is double standards and is wrong. Again either all animals should be protected by such laws or non.
So you want laws equally
And you want this sort of thing to be tolerated
Therefore it would be fine for this python to kill a kid?
I think it's you who has the double standards
But I agree, witch hunt is just OTT.
- Status