# Girl throw puppies in a river and film herself



## Branca (Aug 31, 2010)

I'm just horrified, I found this video in a national Italian news site, i don't know if your areas are talking about this (the origin of the video is unknown) but this is just horrible. In the article they say that they are looking for her, even if is very difficult.
Video here: http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articoli/articolo489683.shtml


----------



## JackJ (Aug 31, 2010)

Please let this be fake.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Aug 31, 2010)

It's all over UK news as well... Just after somebody put a cat in a bin... Not a good week for animals really.


----------



## aronpm (Aug 31, 2010)

4chan is on the case!


----------



## Branca (Aug 31, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> It's all over UK news as well... Just after somebody put a cat in a bin... Not a good week for animals really.



I did not hear about the cat  
Do you have an article to link?


----------



## Johan444 (Aug 31, 2010)

Wow, as usual people care more for animals than human beings. Don't deny it. I bet you rather see a human die than a puppy.


----------



## Toad (Aug 31, 2010)

That's just not very nice now is it...


----------



## Escher (Aug 31, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Wow, as usual people care more for animals than human beings. Don't deny it. I bet you rather see a human die than a puppy.



Lol you're sounding like a ****. Nobody said anything of the sort. If somebody was throwing baby humans into a river the story would be 100x bigger.

On-topic: morality fail.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 31, 2010)

Puppies so cute.
Girl so D:<

Good thing /b/ is all over this - They gon backtrace her, 'cause she dun goof'd. They climbin' in yo riverbeds, snatchin' yo puppies up. 

Really, though, this is quite sad.
Seeing how this turns out should be interesting to say the least.
What kind of punishment this girl will receive...I've no idea.


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 31, 2010)

JackJ said:


> Please let this be fake.



+∞

EDIT:




Hakan said:


> I am seriously against death penalty, but I'd definitely consider making an exception for this girl.



+∞


----------



## Hakan (Aug 31, 2010)

I am seriously against death penalty, but I'd definitely consider making an exception for this girl.


----------



## Escher (Aug 31, 2010)

*Sigh* I take back "Nobody said anything of the sort"... :fp


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Aug 31, 2010)

omgwtf >_> that girl is such a bish.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Aug 31, 2010)

How could you even do that? I really hope this is fake.


----------



## Johan444 (Aug 31, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> How could you even do that? I really hope this is fake.



Don't get your hopes up. Killing/torturing animals is a common activity for kids around the world.

Do you care? Stop going to McDonalds. That goes to all hypocrites in this thread.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Aug 31, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > How could you even do that? I really hope this is fake.
> ...


What?


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Aug 31, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > How could you even do that? I really hope this is fake.
> ...



I don't get it. I have 2 cats and I love them.


EDIT: Nevermind, I don't want to start a 5 page argument.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Aug 31, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> I don't get it. I have 2 cats and I love them.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind, I don't want to start a 5 page argument.


To ensure world peace, we must become adults and vegetarians. Thats the message he's trying to get to us :tu


----------



## Johan444 (Aug 31, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it. I have 2 cats and I love them.
> ...



No, to express any kind of sadness over seeing animals being killed in a non-mercyful way, one must not support the meat industry wich kills animals in comparable ways.


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 31, 2010)

wtf.







:fp


----------



## qqwref (Aug 31, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> How could you even do that? I really hope this is fake.



Actually, this is a pretty traditional way to dispose of unwanted animals (yes, kittens also) when your pet has children, although this girl does unfortunately seem to be having more than the traditional amount of enjoyment. Spaying/neutering wasn't always commonly available, and adoption wasn't always an option. I don't approve of this; I just thought it'd be useful to point out that not everyone would perceive this as the brutally inhumane act it looks like to us.


----------



## Enter (Aug 31, 2010)

omg she is a ****in ***** 
she is Laughing? 
these is not normal!!!


----------



## Igora (Aug 31, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> 
> 
> > CubesOfTheWorld said:
> ...



So, killing animals for food, and killing animals for no reason, when there are perfectly humane ways to get rid of them (the pound) are the same morally?
:fp


----------



## nck (Aug 31, 2010)

Igora said:


> So, killing animals for food, and killing animals for no reason, *when there are perfectly humane ways to get rid of them (the pound)* are the same morally?
> :fp



Such as?
Smashing them with a hammer?
Keep in mind that in rural areas adoption isn't quite an option.

I agree that it's cruel but I have no problem with people doing it for necessity.
(same goes to butchery). But whether it's appropriate to record a video of yourself enjoying killing these puppies is another question.


----------



## Johan444 (Aug 31, 2010)

Igora said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> ...



Killing animals to get the food you want when you could eat something else is on the same level as killing them for enjoyment IMO. (lol, I start to sound like a vegetarian).

And as qqwerf said, you have to get rid of puppys and kittens in one way or another.


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 31, 2010)

How about killing a fly? What does the moral rule have to say on this?

Worth a look: http://www.livescience.com/history/caring-for-animals-shaped-human-evolution-100802.html


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 31, 2010)

Igora said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> ...


You're ignoring the fact that the meat industry does NOT kill animals in humane ways. I don't care why you're killing an animal- if it's not done in a humane way, whether it's for food or for your own sick pleasure, it's wrong.

If you don't believe me that the meat industry does not kill animals in humane ways, I can start posting links and videos.

EDIT:


> How about killing a fly? What does the moral rule have to say on this?


Depends on your ethical code, of course.


----------



## dabmasta (Aug 31, 2010)

I was just going to say that I saw this on /b/. But then I realized ten people did before me.

I saw this on /b/ last night.


----------



## Johan444 (Aug 31, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> How about killing a fly? What does the moral rule have to say on this?
> 
> Worth a look: http://www.livescience.com/history/caring-for-animals-shaped-human-evolution-100802.html



It does not have fur and is not cute so they don't care.


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 31, 2010)

I'm a vegetarian, but I definitely don't see this girl and the meat industry on the same level. They're both bad IMO, but... this girl is much worse.


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 31, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > How about killing a fly? What does the moral rule have to say on this?
> ...



Exactly my point. Nobody would give a damn if some girl killed 3 flies and filmed it.

Besides, the physics of the video isn't right. I had a golden retriever that gave birth to 6 puppies. None were, even when they were just born, that light so that you can throw them that far that easily.

Maybe this is a different breed, who knows.


----------



## Igora (Aug 31, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> You're ignoring the fact that the meat industry does NOT kill animals in humane ways. I don't care why you're killing an animal- if it's not done in a humane way, whether it's for food or for your own sick pleasure, it's wrong.
> 
> If you don't believe me that the meat industry does not kill animals in humane ways, I can start posting links and videos.



I'm not saying the meat industry kills animals in humane ways, I know they don't, but if a puppy is killed in an inhumane way, when it is probably (I say probably because she doesn't look to be a poor person that lives in an area without a pound or shelter) possible to do it in a humane way (but she chooses not to) is more wrong than killing an animal, whether it be humane or not, for food. But I can't argue with your morale code, and this isn't going to change your mind; I just wanted to put out what I think is right- killing an animal for a good reason is better than killing for no reason.


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 31, 2010)

Ok, what is a humane way of killing an animal which you intend to eat?


----------



## goatseforever (Aug 31, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Wow, as usual people care more for animals than human beings. Don't deny it. I bet you rather see a human die than a puppy.



Baby's first troll.


----------



## dabmasta (Aug 31, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> Ok, what is a humane way of killing an animal which you intend to eat?



And this my friends, is called controversy.


----------



## Escher (Aug 31, 2010)

Igora said:


> killing an animal for a _good reason_ is better than killing for no reason.



And this is exactly what most vegetarians debate. In a developed western society, does the enjoyment of the taste exceed the suffering inflicted?

That's also an extremely basic form of the question, completely ignoring efficiency/environmental concerns, or the effects in the developing world of large companies buying out huge swathes of land for meat production, amongst other things.

I'm not trying to start a war, just these types of discussions about animal morality naturally lead to these questions...


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 31, 2010)

Escher said:


> Igora said:
> 
> 
> > killing an animal for a _good reason_ is better than killing for no reason.
> ...



How is killing a vegetable better than killing an animal?

Sure it looks much more horrific when an animal gets slaughtered rather than some crops being collected but, what's the actual difference?


----------



## Owen (Aug 31, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



Yeah, read the comments on this video, and compare it to this thread.


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 31, 2010)

Owen said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...



Well apparently people do care, but not in the sense of caring for the flies that died. We do have some messed up genes lol


----------



## supercuber86 (Aug 31, 2010)

That is sad especially to hear them cry


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 31, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> How is killing a vegetable better than killing an animal?
> 
> Sure it looks much more horrific when an animal gets slaughtered rather than some crops being collected but, what's the actual difference?



The same difference that there is between killing a human and a vegetable. Humans and animals have intelligence, sentience, and the will to live.


----------



## Escher (Aug 31, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> How is killing a vegetable better than killing an animal?
> 
> Sure it looks much more horrific when an animal gets slaughtered rather than some crops being collected but, what's the actual difference?



Vegetables don't display things like consciousness, self-awareness (as in 'I amongst others'), or recognisable pain responses. There are plenty of scientific studies on the most popularly eaten animals in the western world (pigs, cows, sheep) that show the above.

The core of the argument isn't 'killing animals is wrong'. It's 'causing unnecessary pain or death to conscious beings is wrong'.

Read the section on meat in Douglas Hofstadter's 'I Am A Strange Loop' for a very clear explanation...


----------



## Samania (Aug 31, 2010)

This is really sad, But its not like I haven't seen this before. On the news a couple years ago an iraq soldier threw a puppy off a cliff. And a few months ago I saw a video where some kid threw another puppy off a bridge. Lets just hope all these puppy throwing videos are fake.


----------



## Carrot (Aug 31, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> I'm a vegetarian, but I definitely don't see this girl and the meat industry on the same level. They're both bad IMO, but... this girl is much worse.



weee let's start the "Vegetarian Cubing Association" YEAH!! =D


Back to thread: 

....*dies*


----------



## Forte (Aug 31, 2010)

Odder said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a vegetarian, but I definitely don't see this girl and the meat industry on the same level. They're both bad IMO, but... this girl is much worse.
> ...



I DEMAND AN EXTRA PLATE OF CARROTS


----------



## Carrot (Aug 31, 2010)

Forte said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > Anonymous said:
> ...



I DEMAND AN EXTRA PLATE OF PEANUTBUTTER


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 31, 2010)

Escher said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > How is killing a vegetable better than killing an animal?
> ...



Maybe I am too materialistic about this but from my point of view, in the end, the big fish is going to eat the small fish. You can make the entire human population herbivores, but you still won't make the other animal species anything different than they are. If we don't eat them, someone else will.

Besides



Wikipedia said:


> A number of critics contest the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems. Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the "green revolution", Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process,[77] and Prof A. Trewavas.[78]


----------



## Stefan (Aug 31, 2010)

Biatch watched too much Free Willy.


----------



## Escher (Aug 31, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> Maybe I am too materialistic about this but from my point of view, in the end, the big fish is going to eat the small fish. You can make the entire human population herbivores, but you still won't make the other animal species anything different than they are. If we don't eat them, someone else will.



I think you have completely misunderstood me, and I don't really think your point makes that much sense.

Firstly, my argument has nothing to do with making 'the entire human population' herbivores. Secondly, 'if we don't eat them, someone else will' - the whole point is that if we don't eat them/eat less/switch to more humane ways of farming and killing then we will create less animals and ecologically inefficient means of production. Thirdly, if you're attempting to take your argument from nature, as in, 'big fish eats the small fish', you would also have to accept cannibalism as an acceptable meat to eat. 
Remember the argument is based on 'unnecessary' eating of meat. I accept that for many poor local eco-systems the best way of getting nutrition is by small-scale farming of animals.



> Besides
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Asserting that organic farming practices can't manage to feed more than 4 billion people and cause ecological damage doesn't detract from the fact that current farming practices can't manage to feed them either, and still cause massive and growing ecological damage. Though thank you for pointing me to those links, they make interesting reading. I'm resisting the urge to pun. 

What I'm trying to say is that the current system of massive and unnecessary meat consumption (in fact, generally western food consumption) causes great damage; not least the human impact in famine, but also the ecological impact from the inherently inefficient method of farming food for feeding the meat we eat, and also the moral impact - so many consume so much without considering or appreciating where it comes from. 

Being vegetarian avoids moral inconsistencies ('I care about animal welfare but I love McDonalds'), reduces individual ecological impact in regards to participating in food systems that are one of the greatest contributors to climate change, plus in regards to efficiency (kgs of water used per kg of food consumed is one good measure), and in participation in an economic chain that causes famine and destruction of local habitats and economies.
Plus it's easier to avoid unhealthy foods, both in just that the majority of meat is bad for you in the way it's eaten and served in the west, and in that it makes you more diet conscious anyway.

I would like to say that the argument also leads nicely to political, social and economic ones but this really isn't the place (nor the thread).

Besides, I really don't feel like defending my position here any more, it's complicated enough to try and persuade people in person, adding the barrier of the internet makes expressing myself hard work...


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 31, 2010)

if i find her....all choke her by jabbing my crazy foot down her throught,


----------



## Igora (Aug 31, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> Ok, what is a humane way of killing an animal which you intend to eat?


well for one, simply putting the animal to sleep, then shooting its head off, but I never said that the animal I intend to eat has to be put to death in a humane way. What I am saying is in hunting to kill vs. hunting for food, hunting for food is more moral in my mind.


----------



## jiggy (Aug 31, 2010)

=\

I didn't want to watch the entire thing. It always shocks me, the ease with which a person could do something like this.

My dog almost met a similar end...


----------



## theace (Aug 31, 2010)

Igora said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, what is a humane way of killing an animal which you intend to eat?
> ...



It most definitely is, considering the fact that we are, after all, omnivores. Predators kill prey for food in the wild as well - and it may not be the most humane way to do it. What counts is, they do it for food, not some form of sadistic, twisted form of pleasure.

As for a HUMANE way to kill the animal, I guess decapitation would be pretty much painless. However, the problem with this method is that quite a lot of blood would be left in the animal's body and would have to be manually squeezed out of the muscles. If you do not, you risk taking in many of the wastes that the animal's impure blood has.

Another good option would be a potent anesthetic / sedative. However, I do not know if the animal would be fit for consumption after that.


----------



## Igora (Aug 31, 2010)

jiggy said:


> =\
> 
> My dog almost met a similar end...



You almost threw your dog in a river! 
just kidding

On topic: I think we can all agree this person shouldn't have done what they did.


----------



## Slash (Aug 31, 2010)

Every time I see that kind of things, I wish that a the same thing happened to the people they do it.
I'd be very interested if this [email protected] would like to be thrown into a river by me when she can't swim. I wouldn't hurt/injure a girl, but this one is an exception.


----------



## Chapuunka (Aug 31, 2010)

Genesis 1:28b said:


> Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.



Not that that makes what she did OK. What she did is sick.

EDIT: That was aimed at the vegetarian and such arguments. People and animals aren't created equal, I feel that should be pointed out.


----------



## jiggy (Aug 31, 2010)

Igora said:


> jiggy said:
> 
> 
> > =\
> ...


Heh, I saw this one coming!


----------



## shelley (Aug 31, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Genesis 1:28b said:
> 
> 
> > Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.
> ...



Why did you quote something that has absolutely no relevance to the topic?


----------



## Chapuunka (Aug 31, 2010)

shelley said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Genesis 1:28b said:
> ...



It was aimed at the vegetarian thing, although I should've made that more clear. People seem to be concerned with animals at nearly the same level as human life, when they're not equal (biblically).


----------



## PatrickJameson (Aug 31, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



Don't change this to a religion thing. We have no idea what religion this person is nor is it relevant.


----------



## Gollum999 (Aug 31, 2010)

... I really don't know what to say after watching that.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 31, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



More importantly, we have no idea what religion the puppies are.


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Aug 31, 2010)

Igora said:


> So, killing animals for food, and killing animals for no reason, when there are perfectly humane ways to get rid of them (the pound) are the same morally?
> :fp



The pound is not a humane way to kill animals. Gassing animals is not humane. I saw a picture once where a man who works at the pound was saying how horrible it was to have to gas the animals and would buy them all good food right before they had to die as a last meal. I can't find the picture now... The only humane way of killing an animal is a bullet. Done properly, it will be instantaneous.

EDIT: also, whoever said that they oppose the death penalty but would make an exception for this girl is a complete idiot. A person's life is less valuable then a dog's life? Screw your head on straight.


----------



## Owen (Aug 31, 2010)

Whyusosrs? said:


> EDIT: also, whoever said that they oppose the death penalty but would make an exception for this girl is a complete idiot. A person's life is less valuable then a dog's life? Screw your head on straight.



I think that was a joke, or an exaggeration. It was not a serious comment.


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Aug 31, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> JackJ said:
> 
> 
> > Please let this be fake.
> ...





Hakan said:


> I am seriously against death penalty, but I'd definitely consider making an exception for this girl.



They look pretty serious.


----------



## flan (Aug 31, 2010)

theace said:


> Another good option would be a potent anesthetic / sedative. However, I do not know if the animal would be fit for consumption after that.



*drools* Mmmm heroin dog


----------



## Stefan (Aug 31, 2010)

Whyusosrs? said:


> I saw a picture once where a man who works at the pound was saying how horrible it was to have to gas the animals and would buy them all good food right before they had to die as a last meal.



They were probably like "Mmh... yumm... this is gonna be a good day".


----------



## Dene (Aug 31, 2010)

Jolly good! I come in and there's lots of juicy material to bite into. However I will only defend nitrocan for now as I have little time.



Anonymous said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > How is killing a vegetable better than killing an animal?
> ...



I would first like proof that animals have more "intelligence" than plants. I would second like proof that animals are "sentient", and plants are not. Thirdly, I would like proof that animals have "the will to live", and plants do not. 

Basically what I'm saying is you just pulled a bunch of terms out of your ass with nothing to back it up.



Escher said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Vegetables don't display things like consciousness, self-awareness (as in 'I amongst others'), or recognisable pain responses. There are plenty of scientific studies on the most popularly eaten animals in the western world (pigs, cows, sheep) that show the above.
> ...


----------



## Siraj A. (Aug 31, 2010)

Dene said:


> Jolly good! I come in and there's lots of juicy material to bite into. However I will only defend nitrocan for now as I have little time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think a better justification is to say animals can feel pain because they have nerves, but plants have no nerves!


----------



## TheMachanga (Sep 1, 2010)

Many county's are like that. I took a bathroom brake off a road 2 years ago in mexico (up in the mountains, forest), and found 2 baby cats. A near by villager must have let them free there.


----------



## shelley (Sep 1, 2010)

Siraj A. said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Jolly good! I come in and there's lots of juicy material to bite into. However I will only defend nitrocan for now as I have little time.
> ...



Plants still respond to outside stimuli and yes, to stress. It's not as if they are completely unaware of what happens to them.


----------



## Siraj A. (Sep 1, 2010)

shelley said:


> Plants still respond to outside stimuli and yes, to stress. It's not as if they are completely unaware of what happens to them.



Touché.

I'm not sure why the morality of killing plants vs humans vs other animals is being debated though. Bottom line: Puppies are cute. This video is sad.


----------



## The Puzzler (Sep 1, 2010)

Anyone notice the girl looked like Taylor Swift? That is a horrible video!


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 1, 2010)

I almost cried when I watched the video. WTF is wrong with that girl?


----------



## dabmasta (Sep 1, 2010)

I think that this girl is sadistic.


----------



## Igora (Sep 1, 2010)

Whyusosrs? said:


> Igora said:
> 
> 
> > So, killing animals for food, and killing animals for no reason, when there are perfectly humane ways to get rid of them (the pound) are the same morally?
> ...



That's why I said "GID RID of them" not kill them, I'm comparing killing animals for food vs. killing animals for no reason, when you don't have to and can just give them to a pound.


----------



## sub_zero1983 (Sep 1, 2010)

Wow....I'm at a loss for words. I understand that there are times when we human beings have to either kill an animal for food, or put one out of its missery due to some serious injury. But that girl is....well I'm not going to say what I think, I might get banned, but i m sure everyone gets the idea of how I feel. Personally I feel that every person that mistreat's any animal should be locked up for life.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 1, 2010)

Wtf this is too sad.


----------



## Jude (Sep 1, 2010)

It's like the story of the hippo.




The hippopotamus, he is not born
going, "Cool bean, I am a hippo."
No way, José.



So he tried to paint the stripe on himself
to be like the zebra, but he fool no one.



And then he tried to put the spot
on his skin to be like the leopard,



but everyone know he is a hippo.



So at certain point,
he look himself in the mirror,
and hejust say,



"Hey, I am a hippopotamus,
and there is nothing I can do about it."



And as soon as he accepts this,
he live life happy.



Happy as a hippo.



You understand?


----------



## ThePuzzler96 (Sep 1, 2010)

What a creep. I think she's possessed. At least, I hope.


----------



## cuberkid10 (Sep 1, 2010)

There must be something seriously wrong with that girl. Whats up with all of the animal abuse things lately. First, the cat and the garbage can, now this!


----------



## Stefan (Sep 1, 2010)

What a waste of perfectly fine meat.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Sep 1, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> What a waste of perfectly fine meat.



I know...eatin gis better than throwing it away. At least someone will enjoy it the right way.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 1, 2010)

Oh man, you were supposed to criticize me so I could continue like _"What? I'm just saying out loud what every Asian is secretly thinking"_. Sigh. I suck at trolling.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Sep 1, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Oh man, you were supposed to criticize me so I could continue like _"What? I'm just saying out loud what every Asian is secretly thinking"_. Sigh. I suck at trolling.



What are you talking about...


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 1, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Oh man, you were supposed to criticize me so I could continue like _"What? I'm just saying out loud what every Asian is secretly thinking"_. Sigh. I suck at trolling.


I'm (half) Asian and I found the video extremely cruel. I had a recurring nightmare of my pet guinea pig drowning, so watching this made me quite emotional. I hugged my dog right after watching it because I felt so bad about those puppies.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Sep 1, 2010)

I couldn't even finish watching it. That is so ****ing sick. I hope she spends a loooong time locked up.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 1, 2010)

Nonononono, Sarah, don't make me feel all guilty now, that was... not the plan. Wow I really do suck at this.

Sorry I can't empathize, never had a pet and I just hate dogs, they keep yelling at me when I haven't done anything to them.


----------



## Cubing321 (Sep 1, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> I couldn't even finish watching it. That is so ****ing sick. I hope she spends a loooong time locked up.



Aaaamen to that +1


----------



## DT546 (Sep 1, 2010)

aparrently /b/ knows who it is


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 1, 2010)

Dene said:


> Jolly good! I come in and there's lots of juicy material to bite into. However I will only defend nitrocan for now as I have little time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Animals are more intelligent than plants because animals have brains. If you're willing to contest the assumption that intelligence lies in brains, I don't myself have anything to convince you otherwise, but I'd like to point out that personally, I think it's rational to trust the overwhelming scientific majority on this issue.

Wikipedia says:


> Sentience is the ability to feel or percieve.



Again, I believe that thoughts lie in the brain, which plants don't have. Throughout history, I also don't believe there's been any indication that any plant has an organ capable of generating thoughts and consciousness the way a brain can.

I should revise what I said to mean that certain animals have what I think is a clear will to live. Intelligent animals such as dogs, cats, and primates are fearful of bodily harm- nearly everything an animal does is to avoid harm, and I just don't think that we have the right to harm them.

What did I just explain which was not already self-evident?


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Sep 1, 2010)

Really don't want to go onto /b/ just to see this.


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 1, 2010)

Branca said:


> In the article they say that they are looking for her, even if is very difficult.


Nope. Several people have already tracked down who she is and where she lives.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 1, 2010)

Whyusosrs? said:


> Really don't want to go onto /b/ just to see this.



Was there any point to this post at all?

IMO this isnt about whether the killing of animals is wrong. Its more about the fact that she killed a poor defenseless animal(s) for absolutely no reason, and had fun while doing it.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 1, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Nonononono, Sarah, don't make me feel all guilty now, that was... not the plan. Wow I really do suck at this.
> 
> Sorry I can't empathize, never had a pet and I just hate dogs, they keep yelling at me when I haven't done anything to them.



you hate dogs D:< 
They only yell at you because they know you dont like them.


----------



## Lorken (Sep 1, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> It's all over UK news as well... Just after somebody put a cat in a bin... Not a good week for animals really.



I agree, I heard something in the news about kids playing basketball using a puppy... people like that need to get shot


----------



## ChrisBird (Sep 1, 2010)

Ok, after reading 3 pages of this, getting sick of the bickering about animal killing (In terms of the meat industry and all that jolly good crap), and then watching the video, I have come to the following conclusions.

1) The girls completely nuts.
2) Hopefully she will get whatever the law says she should.
3) Charles Barkley said it best. "That is trbl, t-r-b-l trbl."

Isn't that all that needs to be said about this issue?

Turning this into an animal rights thread is just killing the topic in my opinion.

~Chris

I'm no fan of dogs myself, but this isn't how they should be treated.


----------



## TrollingHard (Sep 1, 2010)

...
:/ May she change for the better. Puppykilling freak.


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 1, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Turning this into an animal rights thread is just killing the topic in my opinion.


Agreed. Talking about killing animals for meat vs killing plants is completely irrelevant to the video. >_>


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 1, 2010)

**Feeds cat*
I love you, Common. <3*


----------



## Forte (Sep 1, 2010)

Well, the logical argument is something like "Why are we so distressed that this girl is harming these dogs when we aren't disturbed at ourselves doing things like picking weeds and flowers which are also alive?"


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 1, 2010)

^I've never known flowers to have emotions and anything of the sort. I've only known them to adapt to their environments over time to survive. You can interact with animals, plants... well some of them clamp on your finger but I don't think it's because they chose to...

/logical response?


----------



## Forte (Sep 1, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> ^I've never known flowers to have emotions and anything of the sort. I've only known them to adapt to their environments over time to survive. You can interact with animals, plants... well some of them clamp on your finger but I don't think it's because they chose to...
> 
> /logical response?



i dunno what the logical response is ):


----------



## ChrisBird (Sep 1, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> ^I've never known flowers to have emotions and anything of the sort. I've only known them to adapt to their environments over time to survive. You can interact with animals, plants... well some of them clamp on your finger but I don't think it's because they chose to...
> 
> /logical response?



Logical response: From what we currently know flowers and plants don't have emotions and/or feelings.

But for all we know, and no one can ever rule this out, we could find out that somehow they also have what we define as 'feelings' but they are based/created somewhere or somehow that we never thought of.

We THINK carrots don't have feelings, but if we find out in 1000 years they actually do, how will we feel for peeling their skin off, boiling them alive in water, cutting their heads off and eating them.

Not to good I assume.

~Chris


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 1, 2010)

@Forte: Neither did I, I just gave it a shot. :O

@Chris: Bugs Bunny will be a hero one millennium, a villain the next.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 1, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> We THINK carrots don't have feelings, but if we find out in 1000 years they actually do, how will we feel for peeling their skin off, boiling them alive in water, cutting their heads off and eating them.



You mean after we remove the carrot from the plant? At that point it's been dead for a while. If someone told me that hours or days after someone lost a hand the hand itself could still feel pain and have feelings, I'd be more suspicious of their measuring methods than of how we treat an amputated limb.


----------



## ChrisBird (Sep 1, 2010)

qqwref said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > We THINK carrots don't have feelings, but if we find out in 1000 years they actually do, how will we feel for peeling their skin off, boiling them alive in water, cutting their heads off and eating them.
> ...



You know what I meant =p


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 1, 2010)

I'm sure if we knew that plants and fruits, etc, had a life to live, had feelings, and emotions, SOME OF US wouldn't do such things. But since we don't know currently, nothing major is preventing us from using these resources.
I don't want to start a debate at all with anyone, but this is extremely cruel, and painful to watch. Having just lost my own cat in the recent past, this makes it even worse.


----------



## Tortin (Sep 1, 2010)

This girl really scares me. I really hope she's caught.

Sort of off-topic: I also find this incredibly disappointing. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention, but recently there was also a video with a man disrobing women in public that did not get nearly this much attention...it really is sad how people seem to care more about puppies than people...


----------



## Johan444 (Sep 1, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Whyusosrs? said:
> 
> 
> > Really don't want to go onto /b/ just to see this.
> ...



How do you know? There are many reasons to kill puppies, I haven't read much about the video but I heard that her brother (the one who's filming) said they were sick.

And she had fun while doing so, so? Are there not any other news for the papers to write about...


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 1, 2010)

Vegetables don't have nervous systems so they won't be feeling any pain of any kind. I guess it boils down to if the target has a way of feeling pain in the process of being killed. So at this point, I'd like to ask if it's ok if someone killed a person who has a nervous system disorder that makes him unable to feel any pain at all.


----------



## guinepigs rock (Sep 1, 2010)

This makes me sick I think she needs to go to jail.


----------



## Lorken (Sep 1, 2010)

Tortin said:


> This girl really scares me. I really hope she's caught.
> 
> Sort of off-topic: I also find this incredibly disappointing. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention, but recently there was also a video with a man disrobing women in public that did not get nearly this much attention...it really is sad how people seem to care more about puppies than people...



There is a HUGE difference between pulling someone's clothes off and drowning puppies, can you not see the difference?


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 1, 2010)

Strangely enough, I watched the original Frankenstein in school today. I saw the part where he (unintentionally) drowned the girl. Not be funny, just a thought...


----------



## Radcuber (Sep 1, 2010)

This is messed up, I've seen the article on it and Phillip DeFranco talking about it too. It's messed up but they're probably just putting puppies down without losing money, either that or this girl's mind is just messed up. The cameraman too.


----------



## hic0057 (Sep 1, 2010)

The thing with the person who put the cat in the bin was on the news on the other side of the world where it happen. This would probably spread like that


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 1, 2010)

aronpm said:


> 4chan is on the case!



lolol

That was fast. Is this just 4chan joking or...?
I haven't seen the video because it seems to have been taken down pretty much everywhere.


----------



## Radcuber (Sep 1, 2010)

No they are looking to find out what her identity is so they can get the Croatian version of RSPCA on her ass. And yeah if you REALLY wanna see here's the link http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articoli/articolo489683.shtml but be weary, this is not for the weak stomached.


----------



## Radcuber (Sep 1, 2010)

It's nasty. She and the cameraman are messed up ¬_¬


----------



## Lorken (Sep 1, 2010)

Radcuber said:


> No they are looking to find out what her identity is so they can get the Croatian version of RSPCA on her ass. And yeah if you REALLY wanna see here's the link http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articoli/articolo489683.shtml but be weary, this is not for the weak stomached.



I don't see how it matters if you have a weak stomach, there is nothing in there that made me sick. It just makes me sad that stuff like this happens.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 1, 2010)

Radcuber said:


> No they are looking to find out what her identity is so they can get the Croatian version of RSPCA on her ass. And yeah if you REALLY wanna see here's the link http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articoli/articolo489683.shtml but be weary, this is not for the weak stomached.



First post of the thread:


Branca said:


> I'm just horrified, I found this video in a national Italian news site, i don't know if your areas are talking about this (the origin of the video is unknown) but this is just horrible. In the article they say that they are looking for her, even if is very difficult.
> Video here: http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articoli/articolo489683.shtml



on topic
4chan seems to have come up with some stuff but nothing can be trusted for now.


----------



## Cool Frog (Sep 1, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Good thing /b/ is all over this - They gon backtrace her, 'cause she dun goof'd. They climbin' in yo riverbeds, snatchin' yo puppies up.



Consequences will never be the same!


----------



## Dene (Sep 1, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> Animals are more intelligent than plants because animals have brains. If you're willing to contest the assumption that intelligence lies in brains, I don't myself have anything to convince you otherwise, but I'd like to point out that personally, I think it's rational to trust the overwhelming scientific majority on this issue.
> 
> Wikipedia says:
> 
> ...



Thank you for clarifying your points. Of course I already suspected what you meant but you could have meant several things, and by getting you to clear it up it makes it easier for me to prove you wrong/throw some doubt onto your views.

Let us tackle this one point at a time:
You say there is overwhelming scientific evidence that intelligence lies in the brain. Sure I won't deny that, but is there any evidence that intelligence _cannot_ lie in some other substance? Also, I am quite openly prepared to debate right here that animals do not possess any intelligence in the way that humans do, and certainly not to an extent that they are more "worthy" than plants. Have you ever see a kitten take a dump on kitchen tiles (or some other hard surface), and then try to cover it by clawing at the tiles? This is a natural instinct of the kitten, and I have to admit it does not strike me as particularly intelligent.

You define sentience from wikipedia, which I am happy to accept. Now why is it that plants cannot feel and perceive? Shelley already provided a little defense for this view. Plants appear to react to their environments so they must be feeling and perceiving something there.

You talk about consciousness, but let's be honest this is something that is going to depend entirely on how you define conscious, which still generates huge philosophical debates and we are not about to solve this problem. What it comes down to is, again there is no reason to assume that "consciousness" can _not_ exist in some other substance. (Actually I do not believe that plants, nor animals, are "conscious" in any robust sense as humans are).

I agree that animals have a will to avoid pain etc. But what about plants? What is poison ivy, if not a defense mechanism to protect the plant, perhaps from pain.



ChrisBird said:


> Turning this into an animal rights thread is just killing the topic in my opinion.



Boo you. Don't be a kill joy this debate is way more fun than anything about that video.

EDIT: I want to add something about the "plants don't have central nervous systems therefore can't feel" claims that have been thrown around. Does this not strike people as a blatantly ignorant view, like "we don't know better therefore it can't be true"? Let's be honest, we have no reason to assume that "feelings" cannot come from something other than a CNS.


----------



## VP7 (Sep 1, 2010)

Purina, will scale back production of Puppy Chow now.
Which means more jobs lost.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 1, 2010)

Besides, a will to live even exists on microorganisms since they consume to live and get away from predators in their own ways. In that case, I don't think humans should have sexual intercourse. Is it really "worth the pleasure"? You're killing millions of sperms. Neither should we defecate in a hygienic way, we should just go live in a forest and defecate right on the soil, thus enriching it and not letting die the millions of microorganisms living on it.


----------



## Escher (Sep 1, 2010)

Dene said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > Vegetables don't display things like consciousness, self-awareness (as in 'I amongst others'), or recognisable pain responses. There are plenty of scientific studies on the most popularly eaten animals in the western world (pigs, cows, sheep) that show the above.
> ...



Yay, Deney posted!

Firstly, ugh, no burden of proof can surely ask one to 'define consciousness'. I can give you a set of behaviours and brain scans of activity and results from studies and say that thats what I think can be practically considered 'consciousness' given the way we use the term. I guess the least I can do is say that the demonstration of learned behaviours implies some form of consciousness.

By 'self-awareness' I mean 'having a social structure', as in, 'behavioural and brain patterns that form an observable structure we consider social'. Being able to identify others and have different relationships with them implies a basic awareness of 'the self'.
I'm aware of the Gallup mirror test, but it relies on the animal having a developed sense of vision whereas other animals (like dogs) rely on other senses more (i.e. smell). There are plenty of other objections to it also.

Ya recognisable pain response is sap. You heard the doggies yelping though


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Sep 1, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> We THINK carrots don't have feelings, but if we find out in 1000 years they actually do, how will we feel for peeling their skin off, boiling them alive in water, cutting their heads off and eating them.
> 
> Not to good I assume.
> 
> ~Chris



I'll probably keep on dipping carrots in ranch and then eating them. They're plants. Much in the same way that I don't care that I eat a hamburger.



Tortin said:


> Sort of off-topic: I also find this incredibly disappointing. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention, but recently there was also a video with a man disrobing women in public that did not get nearly this much attention...it really is sad how people seem to care more about puppies than people...



I agree, 100% People get killed and no one cares. But heaven forbid if someone kills a dog.



Radcuber said:


> It's messed up but they're probably just putting puppies down without losing money



This is true. Where I live when your dog has puppies and you can't afford to support them and you can't be bothered to spend money on bullets, you basically just hit them with a shovel. Neither I nor my family has done this however several of my friends have. They are poor and cannot support the puppies. It kills them instantly and it's better then dropping them off somewhere to starve to death. 

2 cents.


----------



## flan (Sep 1, 2010)

Dene said:


> I agree that animals have a will to avoid pain etc. But what about plants? What is poison ivy, if not a defense mechanism to protect the plant, perhaps from pain.



If the ivy gets eaten it cant reproduce. The poison is an evolutionary defense mechanism to protect the species from extinction.


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 2, 2010)

Spoiler






Dene said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > Animals are more intelligent than plants because animals have brains. If you're willing to contest the assumption that intelligence lies in brains, I don't myself have anything to convince you otherwise, but I'd like to point out that personally, I think it's rational to trust the overwhelming scientific majority on this issue.
> ...






Okay, so to your first point, which is that science has not disproven that intelligence can lie in places other than the brain. Isn't the default position supposed to be disbelief? It's been demonstrated that intelligence lies in the brain, but insofar there's been 0 evidence suggesting that intelligence is capable of being elsewhere. It isn't "We don't know better, so it can't be true," it's that "It hasn't been proven, so we'll assume it's not true until more evidence surfaces". 

Your second point makes me want to ask you what you think makes "human" intelligence unique, other than its (for lack of a better word) quantity. To specifically address your example of the kitten (which made me laugh)- yes, many animals do not have the power to think as logically as humans do.They do, however, seem to act as though they have some sort of an ability to solve problems logically. My dog, for instance, if confronted with an obstacle in a hallway, will circle around a different hallway to get to the same destination. This is anecdotal, mind you, but so was your kitty.

Your third point is pretty much your first point- perception lies in the brain, and so far there's been no evidence that anything other than the brain can facilitate that. I don't really know what Shelley was thinking of, but I've seen articles on a weed which grows in a way that seeks out adjacent plants and then wraps around them. This is interaction with the environment, but hardly in a way we'd expect of thinking creatures. It's just growing, in a special predefined pattern.

And then there's your last point about plants having a similar will to avoid pain to animals. Your point about poison ivy equates adaptions with learned behaviors, which isn't valid. You wouldn't cite a person's immune system as evidence that humans don't like to get sick- you would cite their complaints about getting sick. I know that that was only a specific example, but I doubt you could come up with one that doesn't have the same fundamental problem.


----------



## Micael (Sep 2, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> JackJ said:
> 
> 
> > Please let this be fake.
> ...



yea, but it looks real...


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 2, 2010)

Oh wow, she's got a good throwing arm.
(Terrible joke.)

But no seriously, I love dogs and I am shocked.
I once made a post about my love for dogs.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Sep 2, 2010)

To everyone saying we care about animals more than people do you honestly think this is causing more uproar than a video of a girl enjoying throwing babies in a river? Seriously think before you talk.


----------



## Dene (Sep 2, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> It isn't "We don't know better, so it can't be true," it's that "It hasn't been proven, so we'll assume it's not true until more evidence surfaces".



I am of the opinion that a more reasonable stance is "We don't know nearly enough to make any judgement on the matter". Do you think this is unreasonable?



Anonymous said:


> Your second point makes me want to ask you what you think makes "human" intelligence unique, other than its (for lack of a better word) quantity.



I think the evidence for unique human intelligence is all around us. No other living being has shown any evidence of even touching the surface of advancements in stuff [e.g. technology, knowledge] that we have. Perhaps there is no difference other than in quantity, but the point still remains that plants show no difference in intelligence (compared to animals) other than in quantity.



Anonymous said:


> I don't really know what Shelley was thinking of, but I've seen articles on a weed which grows in a way that seeks out adjacent plants and then wraps around them. This is interaction with the environment, but hardly in a way we'd expect of thinking creatures. It's just growing, in a special predefined pattern.



Ah but this is what evolution does to every living being! The point with the kitten example was that it just does what evolution has put into it's repertoire of things to do. It seems that just as the behaviour of plants is strongly determined by genetic inheritance, so too is the behaviour of animals.



Anonymous said:


> And then there's your last point about plants having a similar will to avoid pain to animals. Your point about poison ivy equates adaptions with learned behaviors, which isn't valid.... I know that that was only a specific example, but I doubt you could come up with one that doesn't have the same fundamental problem.



A good point you raise. Learned behaviours is certainly something that would be hard to find in plants and I am no expert in vegetation so I am not about to bust out a super example of it. However, is this really the fundamental distinction that you want to make between animals and plants that makes it ok to slaughter plants, but not to harm animals?


----------



## Andreaillest (Sep 2, 2010)

So I guess she was caught. Karma sure does suck. 
If she'd tried that on my dog, I'd have to bring out my pimp hand.


----------



## Edward (Sep 2, 2010)

Profanity D:
Chill mayne.

I like how the rage levels in this thread were pretty low compared to what I expected.


----------



## penguin009 (Sep 2, 2010)

4Chan already got her MSN... thats how good... i mean creepy they are


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 2, 2010)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015305-71.html

She wrote an apology explaining why she killed the puppies. At least now we know that she didn't do it just to entertain herself. :/


edit: http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...chnik-the-girl-who-threw-puppies-into-a-river
Last sentence, she was arrested.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 2, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015305-71.html
> 
> She wrote an apology explaining why she killed the puppies. At least now we know that she didn't do it just to entertain herself. :/
> 
> ...


Video taken down. :/


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 2, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Sa967St said:
> 
> 
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015305-71.html
> ...



Yeah, it was like that when I found the page too. You can still see the apology though.


----------



## Parity (Sep 2, 2010)

Omg I just wanna punch her in the face.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Sep 2, 2010)

people have done worse things...


----------



## cincyaviation (Sep 2, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015305-71.html
> 
> She wrote an apology explaining why she killed the puppies. At least now we know that she didn't do it just to entertain herself. :/
> 
> ...



Will be arrested, not was arrested.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Did she post the video herself? I probably wouldn't have told anybody if I decided to throw a bunch of puppies in a river.


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Sep 2, 2010)

The animal were sick with parasites. Death by getting eaten from the inside or death in 5 seconds from drowning.

I think that's all we really need to know.


----------



## Edward (Sep 2, 2010)

That's assuming she's telling the truth...


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 2, 2010)

Yeah , not eveyone is a truthful as you think.


----------



## dabmasta (Sep 2, 2010)

Well, im sure more details will come out when she is in court.


----------



## Chapuunka (Sep 2, 2010)

Not to mention there are other, quicker ways than throwing them in rivers.


----------



## shelley (Sep 2, 2010)

Yeah, don't trust everything you read on the internet. But the info 4chan dug up was most definitely her address and info and not some innocent girl who had nothing to do with it.

Relevant: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/d7m1c/dear_internet_vigilantes_and_lynch_mobs/


----------



## Gavin (Sep 2, 2010)

I think I am going to pass on watching that...


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 2, 2010)

shelley said:


> Relevant: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/d7m1c/dear_internet_vigilantes_and_lynch_mobs/



Basically why we've been deleting her personal info ITT.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Sep 2, 2010)

But this just makes me furious at lynch mobs and I want to throw them off a bridge.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Sep 2, 2010)

What I meant was did she _choose_ to post the _original video_ on the internet, or was is discovered by the press independently?


----------



## AvidCuber (Sep 2, 2010)

TheCubeMaster5000 said:


> What I meant was did she _choose_ to post the _original video_ on the internet, or was is discovered by the press independently?


 I heard somewhere (I don't remember where) that her friend was filming it and uploaded it.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Interesting. I bet those two girls aren't friends anymore.

edit: assuming the person holding the camera is a girl.


----------



## VP7 (Sep 2, 2010)

Quote from: http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...chnik-the-girl-who-threw-puppies-into-a-river

"All these questions will be answered when Katja Puschnik will be arrested on charges of human cruelty."

WTF ?


----------



## F.P. (Sep 3, 2010)

It really baffles me how people get so upset about this.

Double standards and hypocrisy...but I guess ignorance prevents people from seeing that.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 3, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> Not a good week for animals really.



* 45,895,000,000 (45.9 billion) chickens
* 2,262,000,000 (2.3 billion) ducks
* 1,244,000,000 (1.2 billion) pigs
* 857,000,000 (857 million) rabbits
* 691,000,000 (691 million) turkeys
* 533,000,000 (533 million) geese
* 515,000,000 (515 million) sheep
* 345,000,000 (345 million) goats
* 292,000,000 (292 million) cows and calves (for beef and veal)
* 65,000,000 (65 million) other rodents (not including rabbits)
* 63,000,000 (63 million) pigeons and other birds
* 23,000,000 (23 million) buffaloes
* 4,000,000 (4 million) horses
* 3,000,000 (3 million) donkeys and mules
* 2,000,000 (2 million) camels (and other camelids)

TOTAL: 52,794,000,000
United States: 9,116,248,000

The numbers only include land animals slaughtered for food for which records were taken. They do not include the billions of marine animal killed each year. They do not include the millions of animals killed in laboratories, fur farms, animal shelters, zoos, marine parks, or circuses. Nor do they include the animals killed by human negligence, blood sports, abuse, or extermination attempts.



+1 cat and 5 puppies.


http://www.beautomated.com/counter


----------



## yockee (Sep 3, 2010)

They say they believe the girl is from Bosnia.


----------



## yockee (Sep 3, 2010)

It's not her. They found out the girl's name is actually something like Anatonia Kijsik.... I forget how to spell it. Something like that.


----------



## Dene (Sep 3, 2010)

F.P. said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > Not a good week for animals really.
> ...



And what about the billions of plans killed every _day_? All the wheat, corn, vegetables, fruit, and so on. Do they not have any rights either? Talk about a hypocrite. Take a leaf out of Korn's book and take a look in the mirror.


----------



## Johan444 (Sep 3, 2010)

F.P. said:


> It really baffles me how people get so upset about this.
> 
> Double standards and hypocrisy...but I guess ignorance prevents people from seeing that.



My point exactly.

If reality is too harsch, put on some MTV, go to McDonalds and become religious.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 3, 2010)

Dene said:


> And what about the billions of plans killed every _day_? All the wheat, corn, vegetables, fruit, and so on. Do they not have any rights either? Talk about a hypocrite. Take a leaf out of Korn's book and take a look in the mirror.



Are plants sentient beings?
Let's suppose they are, what kind of selective advantage would plants have because of that?

And then again, let's suppose plants are sentient beings; then it would be even more necessary to not consume any animal products. Why? For example, in the US over 80% of the corn harvest is fed to farm animals.

And you know that we only eat the already dead part of the wheat, right?
And that for fruits, being consumed is a way of reproduction, right?


Regardless of all that...the majority of the plant harvest is fed/produced to/for farm animals anyway. So, what's your point?


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 3, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > It really baffles me how people get so upset about this.
> ...



If you want to avoid that hypocrisy, you could be a vegetarian. 

Will post response to Dene soon...


----------



## Johan444 (Sep 3, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > F.P. said:
> ...



Correct, this is what I told the angry mob a few pages back. But I guess their burgers are too good.


----------



## Sakarie (Sep 3, 2010)

My guess is that this very young girl is not fully mentally capable. To track her down and expose would perhaps ruin parts of her life. I can't see how any one would support that?


----------



## Dene (Sep 3, 2010)

F.P. said:


> Are plants sentient beings?
> Let's suppose they are, what kind of selective advantage would plants have because of that?



See earlier in this thread for a discussion between myself and another forum member over the topic of "sentience". What does selective advantage have to do with the morality of killing animals? (Seeing as this is the topic under scrutiny).



F.P. said:


> And then again, let's suppose plants are sentient beings; then it would be even more necessary to not consume any animal products. Why? For example, in the US over 80% of the corn harvest is fed to farm animals.



For this we must assume that it is indeed wrong to kill animals (and plants); or at least to do so to a minimum. I completely disagree with this (obviously). 



F.P. said:


> And you know that we only eat the already dead part of the wheat, right?


Sure, after it has been killed by us.



F.P. said:


> And that for fruits, being consumed is a way of reproduction, right?



Perhaps it is, but by picking fruit off trees we are murdering them. After they have fallen off trees and they are already dead then I can see no inconsistency with eating them in this case. But then you must concede that it is ok to eat meat after animals have died a natural death. I'm not sure whether you want to concede this or not, but regardless it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.



F.P. said:


> So, what's your point?



Basically, my point is that until you can find some fundamental aspect of animals that morally separates them from plants such that it is ok to slaughter as many plants as we want, but not to mistreat (at least some) animals (I suspect you might exclude animals such as ants or something), your views are inconsistent and hypocritical.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 3, 2010)

Dene said:


> What does selective advantage have to do with the morality of killing animals? (Seeing as this is the topic under scrutiny).



I mentioned that because I thought you were trying to say that you believe that plants can actually feel pain (and therefore it would be wrong to kill them).



Dene said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > And then again, let's suppose plants are sentient beings; then it would be even more necessary to not consume any animal products. Why? For example, in the US over 80% of the corn harvest is fed to farm animals.
> ...



Of course; someone getting upset about this girl killing 5 puppies should also be upset about billions of other non-human animals being killed every year though. 

If you aren't one of the "kill her, it's awful what she did to that poor puppies"-guys, then my original post isn't directed to you anyway. 



Dene said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > And you know that we only eat the already dead part of the wheat, right?
> ...



No; same goes with fungi by the way.




Dene said:


> Perhaps it is, but by picking fruit off trees we are murdering them. After they have fallen off trees and they are already dead then I can see no inconsistency with eating them in this case. But then you must concede that it is ok to eat meat after animals have died a natural death. I'm not sure whether you want to concede this or not, but regardless it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.



Yes, of course it is ok to eat non-human animals who died a natural death.

And I wrote "[...] that for fruits, being consumed is a way of reproduction" because one could interpret this as "they want to be consumed".



Dene said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > So, what's your point?
> ...



You can give the answer to yourself by trying to find out, what "morally separates" human animals from non-human animals. 

Most likely this will end up with you being ok with mentally retarded people, small children up to a certain age and, of course, babies being killed.


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 3, 2010)

Certain animals are killed in mass numbers for human consumption all the time. We aren't the ones doing the killing, watching the killing happen, or thinking of the killing when we go in a restaurant to get something to eat. That would obviously makes people feel less guilty in at all about it.
This however, is animal abuse with what seems to be no real purpose, and they (lady with the cat and the girl throwing the puppies) seem to like doing so or find it funny...

Not trying to create some statement for a debate, I just wanted to share a thought (and without perfecting it so much that there aren't any flaws you can easily point out). I'm not gonna debate it like a lot of what this thread has been, I'll leave that to Deneyface.

Yeah.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 3, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> Certain animals are killed in mass numbers for human consumption all the time. We aren't the ones doing the killing, watching the killing happen, or thinking of the killing when we go in a restaurant to get something to eat.



Well, whenever you consume a product, you are supporting it's production and you choose what you consume and you know that chicken breast doesn't fall from the sky. You order that animals get killed and you support the way it is done and the whole system.




IamWEB said:


> This however, is animal abuse with what seems to be no real purpose, and they (lady with the cat and the girl throwing the puppies) seem to like doing so or find it funny...



You are eating other animals simply because you like the taste of it, not because you need to do it. That's about the same "real purpose" as someone watching snuff movies...entertainment.

And for the victim it doesn't really matter for what reason it was killed/tortured/exploited anyway.


----------



## Novriil (Sep 3, 2010)

I remember a few weeks ago in our cooking show (ordinary people cook and then other people rate it and so on) there was somebody who had a rabbit-farm and he/she decided to make something from a rabbit and they broadcasted the killing of the rabbit before he/she/it was cooked. 

After a big discussion some psychiatrist said that to young children are better to watch people-killing-movie (Rambo?) than animal killing video. That's because the people getting killed are bad mostly but animals are innocent and they are being killed for not doing anything wrong.

Of course where does bacon come from. Tons of animals are being killed for food but the problem was mostly because they broadcasted it in national TV.


----------



## shelley (Sep 3, 2010)

Dene said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > And that for fruits, being consumed is a way of reproduction, right?
> ...



Well, most fruits (certainly the ones we eat) were evolved to be eaten by other animals so that the seed can be spread. An apple tree seems to be fine even though its fruits are picked off year after year.

But pulling up a plant and eating its roots would probably count as "murdering" it.

Still, unless you're a plant and can get energy from the sun directly, obtaining nutrients is usually going to involve killing another organism.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 3, 2010)

F.P. said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > Not a good week for animals really.
> ...



Excuse me, can you please divide by 52 for me? We're talking about a WEEK here. Unless you believe that meat/egg production has been scaled up about 52 times since 2007 (the year your data is from anyway).

Anyway, the cat was fine 



Dene said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > And that for fruits, being consumed is a way of reproduction, right?
> ...


Nope, I cannot agree with this even in theory. First off, fruits are not organisms by themselves, which means nothing is killed if you take a fruit. Second, fruit is an extremely energetically costly thing for a plant to make, and the *only* benefit it provides to the plant's entire species is to help spread seeds. It does not help photosynthesis, aid reproduction, fend off predators/insects, or anything else like that. Similarly there is no reason for fruit to be full of water and sugars (again, costly things for a plant to manufacture!) - except that the point of fruits is that they will be eaten and that by that mechanism animals will spread the seeds. The only and obvious conclusion is that the fruits are as tasty (i.e. containing many sugars and no toxins) as they are because they are supposed to get eaten. Your statement is as silly as saying that when a barber cuts someone's hair he is murdering it.


----------



## flan (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm no expert but there is simply no denying pigs and cows are intelligent and they suffer in the food production industry. I dont care if one day we find out plants suffer. I don't think we will and even if we do it doesnt make me a bad person for only being vegetarian and not fruitarian.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 3, 2010)

flan said:


> I'm no expert but there is simply no denying pigs and cows are intelligent and they suffer in the food production industry. I dont care if one day we find out plants suffer. I don't think we will and even if we do it doesnt make me a bad person for only being vegetarian and not fruitarian.



Actually cows are pretty retarded.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 3, 2010)

The only moral thing we can do is follow the path of Prahlad Jani and not eat anything at all.


----------



## BluePi1313 (Sep 3, 2010)

I really hope it's fake, cuz those puppies are soo cute!!!!!  unfortunately, it's not.


----------



## flan (Sep 3, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> flan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm no expert but there is simply no denying pigs and cows are intelligent and they suffer in the food production industry. I dont care if one day we find out plants suffer. I don't think we will and even if we do it doesnt make me a bad person for only being vegetarian and not fruitarian.
> ...



I admit they arnt the sharpest tools in the shed but they still suffer. Here in the uk farming laws state that you cant slaughter a cow infront of other cows because it distressess them. They have to be taken into a separate room and killed.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 3, 2010)

BluePi1313 said:


> I really hope it's fake, cuz those puppies are soo cute!!!!!  unfortunately, it's not.




Yah it's a shame they weren't ugly.


----------



## BluePi1313 (Sep 3, 2010)

here's a new link: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/7953837/dog-killed-in-backyard-stabbing
Why are people so cruel to these animals? There's another sad and gross thing, about some people eating dogs and stuff. But Idk why, these news are just more horrifying than human eating dogs.

Speaking of animals, I found a frog on my air conditioner... which was weird, since my room is 2 stories up. I woke up in the morning, and it's gone... I just hope it's safe, it was soo tiny! probably 1 inch.


----------



## BluePi1313 (Sep 3, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > CubesOfTheWorld said:
> ...



I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. I mean, killing animals for no reason at all is one thing, but killing then eating them is another. If you kill an animal, then eat them or something! Eating is something people have to do, so I guess I could understand that, but it would be a bit gross and sad... for some animals at least.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 3, 2010)

BluePi1313 said:


> There's another sad and gross thing, about some people eating dogs and stuff.


There is no moral difference between eating a cow and eating a dog.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 3, 2010)

In other news, people die everyday.


----------



## Dane man (Sep 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> In other news, people die everyday.



+1

But it doesn't excuse the fact that this is wrong.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 4, 2010)

19 pages of people debating this. I realize that the posts aren't praising her on the video but honestly everytime I see this in the new updated threads on homepage it makes me sick. I'd much prefer if this could be closed, not to mention it's not like the posts are of any sort of good information, they are pointless half-thought remarks.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 4, 2010)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rowing-girl-tracked-police.html#ixzz0yWXtgVtW

Theyve backtraced her.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> In other news, people die everyday.



Yes, people die. Your point? Are you saying because people die every day, it's morally permissible to kill people? Not trying to set up a straw man- I just don't know what you're trying to say.


----------



## Joker (Sep 4, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> 19 pages of people debating this. I realize that the posts aren't praising her on the video but honestly everytime I see this in the new updated threads on homepage it makes me sick. I'd much prefer if this could be closed, not to mention it's not like the posts are of any sort of good information, they are pointless half-thought remarks.


I agree. +1.
This stuff happens. Not much we can do about it.


hawkmp4 said:


> BluePi1313 said:
> 
> 
> > There's another sad and gross thing, about some people eating dogs and stuff.
> ...


There is also no moral difference eating a potato. You killed something that once lived. Plain and simple.


----------



## Dene (Sep 4, 2010)

I will come up with responses to stuff when I am thinking straight in 2 days. I promise I'm not ignoring this


----------



## BluePi1313 (Sep 5, 2010)

I FOUND OUT WHO IT IS!!! Katja Puschnik according to this article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor..._police_after_disturbing_video_released_.html


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 5, 2010)

Joker said:


> There is also no moral difference eating a potato. You killed something that once lived. Plain and simple.



So then, you would have to either say that eating a potato is morally impermissible, or that murder is morally permissible.

Which is it?


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 5, 2010)

F.P. said:


> IamWEB said:
> 
> 
> > Certain animals are killed in mass numbers for human consumption all the time. We aren't the ones doing the killing, watching the killing happen, or thinking of the killing when we go in a restaurant to get something to eat.
> ...



No.
Yes, but no.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 5, 2010)

qqwref said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieCooper said:
> ...



Obviously I wasn't trying to suggest that this is the amount of killings during one week. And of course I don't have the statistics for 2010 yet. 

Even if there was a girl throwing 5 puppies into a river every week for a whole year, then the number would still look pretty ridiculous next to the others.



@Dene: That's ok...good luck with your hangover (I guess).


----------



## qqwref (Sep 5, 2010)

F.P. said:


> Obviously I wasn't trying to suggest that this is the amount of killings during one week. And of course I don't have the statistics for 2010 yet.
> 
> Even if there was a girl throwing 5 puppies into a river every week for a whole year, then the number would still look pretty ridiculous next to the others.


Right, the comparison is still a huge factor, but it's an issue of numeracy. For some people 1 billion and 50 billion are both almost meaninglessly gigantic numbers, especially when compared to five, but for me one is still 50 times the other and that does matter.


----------



## BC1997 (Sep 5, 2010)

pls be fake im ean what kind of phsycopath does that


----------



## Stefan (Sep 5, 2010)

BluePi1313 said:


> I FOUND OUT WHO IT IS!!! Katja Puschnik



OMG SO IMPORTANT NOW WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION??? AND WOW YOU CAN READ A NEWS ARTICLE WITH OLD NEWS AND SAY YOU FOUND IT OUT WOW YOU'RE MY HERO.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 5, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > In other news, people die everyday.
> ...




That is a really dumb conclusion to draw.


----------



## clarubik (Sep 5, 2010)

That's horrible they were so cute too


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 5, 2010)

clarubik said:


> That's horrible they were so cute too





Kirjava said:


> Yah it's a shame they weren't ugly.


----------



## shelley (Sep 5, 2010)

F.P. said:


> @Dene: That's ok...good luck with your hangover (I guess).



Hangover? You know his hometown was recently hit by a 7.4 earthquake?


----------



## Dene (Sep 6, 2010)

F.P. said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > F.P. said:
> ...



Oh no it's easy to separate humans from non-human animals without going down that path. I can just say "humans are special because we have moral capacity, and using that capacity, we can generalise to all other humans, although they may lack the capacity itself (species preference, if you like), while excluding all non-human organisms". Of course, "moral capacity" is not the only path I could go down. The point here is that I can just include all humans, even if they don't meet specific criteria.



qqwref said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > F.P. said:
> ...



Ok you're right I agree but I can modify my claims to make it work. I can just say that pulling an apple off a tree (i.e. not waiting for it to fall) _could possibly_ cause the _tree_ great pain, just as ripping the testicles off a human male would hurt. This doesn't really solve the second part of what you bring up, but even so you cannot deny that we could potentially be putting apple trees through torture.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 6, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



Of course it is. Which is why I asked you instead of assuming. I don't think that's what you were trying to say, but I couldn't figure out what else it could be.


----------



## ThatGuy (Sep 6, 2010)

I sort of want to see PETA flip out to this if they haven't already. And although I don't really like dogs, puppies are cute. D:


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Sep 6, 2010)

ThatGuy said:


> I sort of want to see PETA flip out to this if they haven't already. And although I don't really like dogs, puppies are cute. D:



PETA....? I mean, I guess they'd protest that the girl should have eaten the puppies instead of throwing them into a river....but then again, puppies aren't really tasty, are they?


----------



## Green (Sep 6, 2010)

This sickens me, I was just hanging out with some dogs a couple hours ago too.


----------



## Joker (Sep 6, 2010)

I'd like this better if it was "Girl throws herself in a river and puppies film"
Simply scramble the words, and there you go.


----------



## Joker (Sep 6, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Joker said:
> 
> 
> > There is also no moral difference eating a potato. *You killed something that once lived. Plain and simple*.
> ...



Eating a potatoe is morally impermissible. No really, I was talking about murder.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 7, 2010)

ok so ya, the puppies didnt die. Now they are up for adoption.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/djpopeurban/puppies-thrown-into-bosnian-river-saved-and-up-for-zu0


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> ok so ya, the puppies didnt die. Now they are up for adoption.
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/djpopeurban/puppies-thrown-into-bosnian-river-saved-and-up-for-zu0



I wanna know how she found them, and if those'r the real puppies.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 7, 2010)

shelley said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > @Dene: That's ok...good luck with your hangover (I guess).
> ...



Why should I know where this guy lives/comes from?


@Dene: If you can say that you can just include all humans even though they may lack that certain ability then I could also say that you need to include every other being who lacks that ability.
Where is the difference between a human infant and a pig for that matter?

And I also don't see why the moral capacity of a certain being would be a reason not to kill it, especially if you have no problem with billions of pigs, cows and other animals being slaughtered. One could also critisize the moral capacity of someone who is ok with that at all.


Besides that, it's pretty bold to claim that only humans have a moral capacity. 


As far as I know there is nothing that suggests that pulling an apple off a tree causes pain to the tree. I could also claim that whenever I walk on cement, it causes pain to it. But I'm quite certain that there is nothing to backup that claim just as there is nothing to backup yours.

I'm quite interested in that topic though, so if there are any new research results please inform me.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > ok so ya, the puppies didnt die. Now they are up for adoption.
> ...



http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7957415/elderly-woman-didnt-save-puppies-from-river-villagers


----------



## Dene (Sep 7, 2010)

F.P. said:


> If you can say that you can just include all humans even though they may lack that certain ability then I could also say that you need to include every other being who lacks that ability.



No but I want to say that our species is exclusive, even if not all members meet the exact criteria, they are in simply because they are of the same species.



F.P. said:


> And I also don't see why the moral capacity of a certain being would be a reason not to kill it, especially if you have no problem with billions of pigs, cows and other animals being slaughtered. One could also critisize the moral capacity of someone who is ok with that at all.



Just like I can criticize the moral capacity of someone who thinks it is ok to slaughter billions of plants and vegetation without any evidence that they have no knowledge of it. We could argue for ages about what separates humans from other species, but in the end we have to eat something.




F.P. said:


> As far as I know there is nothing that suggests that pulling an apple off a tree causes pain to the tree. I could also claim that whenever I walk on cement, it causes pain to it. But I'm quite certain that there is nothing to backup that claim just as there is nothing to backup yours.



Well that's just a strawman, cement is an inanimate object. And you're right, I have nothing to back up my claim that plants feel pain, just as you have no real evidence to back up your claim that animals feel pain (which I guess is the main reason you are against killing animals, but any other reason applies exactly the same so that is irrelevant). Sure we see signs that animals display behaviour that resembles the behaviour humans exhibit when in pain, but this does not guarantee that animals actually feel anything, nor does it guarantee that plants don't, just because they do not show the same behaviours.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? There is simply no proof either way, and it makes you arrogant to pretty much say "well my way is right and you're going to hell because you don't follow it" (religious reference can be ignored w/e).


----------



## Plaincow (Sep 7, 2010)

that girl makes me sick i normally arent disgusted by anything but this is too much someone needs to get her.


----------



## ChrisBird (Sep 8, 2010)

Plaincow said:


> that girl makes me sick i normally arent disgusted by anything but this is too much someone needs to get her.



Stop being such a plain cow.

Everyone knows complex cows are much better.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 13, 2010)

Sorry for the late response.




Dene said:


> No but I want to say that our species is exclusive, even if not all members meet the exact criteria, they are in simply because they are of the same species.



To me that seems like you are trying to justify your speciesism with speciesism.

You think it's wrong to kill humans because they are humans even if they don't have the certain abilities which you use to make a distinction between human animals and non-human animals; and on the other hand it's not wrong to kill other animals, because they aren't humans.




Dene said:


> Just like I can criticize the moral capacity of someone who thinks it is ok to slaughter billions of plants and vegetation without any evidence that they have no knowledge of it.



There is absolutely no reason to believe that plants feel pain. That human animals and other animals feel pain fulfills a certain purpose. It's a selective advantage. A plant feeling pain would have absolutely no purpose.



Dene said:


> We could argue for ages about what separates humans from other species, but in the end we have to eat something.



Not necessarily other animals though...probably better not other animals. Top five causes of death/diseases of civilization are on my side. 




Dene said:


> Well that's just a strawman, cement is an inanimate object. And you're right, I have nothing to back up my claim that plants feel pain, just as you have no real evidence to back up your claim that animals feel pain (which I guess is the main reason you are against killing animals, but any other reason applies exactly the same so that is irrelevant). Sure we see signs that animals display behaviour that resembles the behaviour humans exhibit when in pain, but this does not guarantee that animals actually feel anything, nor does it guarantee that plants don't, just because they do not show the same behaviours.



The only difference in the measurement of pain is that I can ask a human wether he/she feels pain or not; but his/her answer is not really something that one would consider "scientific". 
And then we are only left with studies of the brain; non-human animals have nociceptive nerves, they have a cortex. They have heightened blood pressure and show the same behaviour as humans when they are inflicted with pain. 

If you ignore all that and still insist on other animals not being able to feel pain then I can simply deny that all humans feel pain. If someone says that "it hurts", I don't have to believe that. 
Since that he/she has a fully functional brain, the nerves, pain conducting chemicals and brain areas needed to/which are most important to feel pain and shows the typical behaviour of a sentient being inflicted with pain doesn't matter to me.


By the way...in the past two years I went to a few different slaughter houses and animal farms (mainly "eggs" and "milk", but also minks) in germany. And I know that the experience I made there has nothing to do with scientific research and I know that I can't use it as an argument but I bet that you would think quite different about everything regarding pain and non-human animals after a visit at the ultimative "organic/eco/species-appropriate husbandry" slaughter house in germany.


----------



## Dene (Sep 13, 2010)

Well I think we are basically done with this, although I should point out that I don't believe for a second that most animals do not feel pain; I think it is pretty clear that they do. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that plants do not feel something when they are chopped to bits.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 13, 2010)

F.P. said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > No but I want to say that our species is exclusive, even if not all members meet the exact criteria, they are in simply because they are of the same species.
> ...


I'm wondering why speciesism needs to be justified at all. I don't think it's never immoral to kill animals, or that animals can't feel pain or shouldn't be considered, but it would be silly to claim that humans as a species are not superior or shouldn't be treated as superior.

I've heard this word before and it annoys me. The word itself suggests this is a Bad Thing. But why? Aren't racism, sexism, and so on bad because it's humans we're discriminating against - humans who are in a situation that we could ourselves be in if we didn't have the luck of being born a certain way or in a certain place/time? But discrimination (in the very general sense of treating one group of objects or creatures differently than another) is not necessarily a problem. No reasonable person complains that housecats only get to eat cat food while humans may eat almost anything. No reasonable person complains that people are allowed to become kindergarten teachers while chimpanzees or parrots are not. I don't think this is a belief which deserves a negative connotation.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 14, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I've heard this word before and it annoys me. The word itself suggests this is a Bad Thing. But why? Aren't racism, sexism, and so on bad because it's humans we're discriminating against - humans who are in a situation that we could ourselves be in if we didn't have the luck of being born a certain way or in a certain place/time? But discrimination (in the very general sense of treating one group of objects or creatures differently than another) is not necessarily a problem. No reasonable person complains that housecats only get to eat cat food while humans may eat almost anything. No reasonable person complains that people are allowed to become kindergarten teachers while chimpanzees or parrots are not. I don't think this is a belief which deserves a negative connotation.



I think that might be some kind of misinterpretation of what animal rights activists actually want. 
It's certainly not about chimpanzees being allowed to become kindergarten teachers or cows being allowed to vote. All that's asked for is a life without imprisonment, exploitation, suffering and murder for all animals (including humans obviously, since animal rights include human rights by definition).

I guess no one claims that humans aren't superior to some other animals in certain ways; but does that give humans the right to imprison, exploit and murder?

However, discrimination certainly is a problem if it causes the suffering of billions of sentient beings every year.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 14, 2010)

Dene said:


> Well I think we are basically done with this, although I should point out that I don't believe for a second that most animals do not feel pain; I think it is pretty clear that they do. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that plants do not feel something when they are chopped to bits.



Yeah, just as you (or anyone else) can't prove that it really hurts if you get beaten with a baseball bat.


----------

