Bitch throws puppies into river

[Cunt]

I think we already have an animal rights thread.

The vegans/vegetarians are just as predictable though once you know all the arguments.

i am a hypocrite enough to eat animals . I'm happy to debate A Linda McCartney style vegetarian on this point but to be honest Excluding Road kill and needful culls I find it hard to see a rational argument for commercial meat production rather than vegan ism .

I have one (though I still think it deserves it's own thread)

Of course you have to balance this with the soya milk brigade who are happy to fuck the world as long as Real milk does not pass their lips .

Yes. How far is the soy shipped to help hippies stay 'green'?
How much damage does the soy crop do?

I fucking wish every thing I ate died with a bullet in It's head and a mouthful of fresh clean grass .


But throwing puppies in a river on video Going Weeeeeeee ! and then posting it on Youutube IS WRONG .

I think so too, but I just don't think we know enough to convict someone. Treat it like fact if you wish, but remember the source:

Says right on the label that only a fool would take anything posted there as fact.

We do not debate that casually throwing a cat in a bin is wrong ,do we? but In this case suddenly we have to justify the whole of man's inhumanity to animals before we can say What a heartless bitch .

Nope, you can make any judgements you wish based on whatever evidence is good enough for you.

Great so we can never say that Bullfighting is wrong while we allow the fuckers in the Philippines to treat dogs how they do ?

I like the idea of publicizing crimes, but this one made a connection (a shitty one, I think) to a real person and has convicted her without even knowing for sure what happened.

What a great system that is; as long as somewhere in the world a worse example can be found then nobody should give a shit ?

Nope, but running off at the mouth from something pulled out of a trolling site isn't 'giving a shit', it's giving considerably less.

I think spaying a few strays would be worth more, don't you?

[sandinista]

Tell you what, sometimes vegetarianism pisses me off. My daughter has a nut allergy and ingesting peanuts will kill her. It really hacks me off when there is a tiny little allergy warning that you need a scanning electron microscope to read, then on the inside of the packaging, say on the plastic film covering the product, it says all over the place , "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat". That's pandering to arseholes I think. You don't die if you eat meat.

What are you referring to, specifically? Why would vegan or vegetarian packaging even have that on their labels?

Pandering to arseholes? So vegans and vegetarians who demand truth in labeling are arseholes? Also, with veganism and vegetarianism becoming more and more mainstream, why wouldn't someone put that on their label if they want to sell their products to a certain demographic?

No, but the warnings are over the top in relation to the possible outcome of eating the product. Eat nuts, die. Eat meat, feel morally corrupted. The labelling should have the health warning at least as prominent as the discomfort caveat.

Tell you what, sometimes vegetarianism pisses me off. My daughter has a nut allergy and ingesting peanuts will kill her. It really hacks me off when there is a tiny little allergy warning that you need a scanning electron microscope to read, then on the inside of the packaging, say on the plastic film covering the product, it says all over the place , "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat" "contains meat". That's pandering to arseholes I think. You don't die if you eat meat.

Wouldn't the arseholes be the ones doing the pandering?

Possibly, but I imagine it's the wrath of the righteous that worries them into putting the warnings on.

And, exactly what would that wrath be? I think you are imagining things.

A quick perusal of animal rights, vegetarian and vegan sites shows little, if any indignation over labeling.

Sorry, but you do sound a bit prejudiced towards vegans and vegetarians with those statements.

haha, yah, thats what I was thinking. The "Vegan lobby"...now thats a powerful lobby!

[sandinista]

I've been a vegetarian and I still don't eat meat very often.

Some people of that dietary persuasion are assholes, I think more than a few are in it for the self-righteousness of it. Still, that's not the majority of the ones I've encountered.


That said, I've seen meat eating people get very defensive very quick when I, or someone else brings up vegetarianism.

It's not an either/or thing with the visible warnings. It may be pressure from some vegetarian lobby making the "contains meat" labeling big, but it ain't them keeping the "contains peanuts" warning small.

"Some people of that dietary persuasion are assholes"? Of course. I mean, fuck, how many meat eaters are assholes. People can be assholes in general. I love all this "vegans/vegetarians" are assholes. Really?? I would be willing to bet my account here that there are more meat eating assholes than vegan assholes. Not literal assholes, like anuses...but fucking assholes. By world population alone thats gotta be true. If anyone thinks that "vegans/vegetarians" are loud mouthed or in your face about meat, its because "we" are up against an industry that is in our face constantly in the form or billions of dollars of advertising. Not sure about anywhere else, but over half the commercials on canadian tv are meat related. A "vegans/vegetarian" raising his or her voice is nothing when faced with that.

[maiforpeace]

I think we already have an animal rights thread.

The vegans/vegetarians are just as predictable though once you know all the arguments.

i am a hypocrite enough to eat animals . I'm happy to debate A Linda McCartney style vegetarian on this point but to be honest Excluding Road kill and needful culls I find it hard to see a rational argument for commercial meat production rather than vegan ism .

Of course you have to balance this with the soya milk brigade who are happy to fuck the world as long as Real milk does not pass their lips .

I fucking wish every thing I ate died with a bullet in It's head and a mouthful of fresh clean grass .


But throwing puppies in a river on video Going Weeeeeeee ! and then posting it on Youutube IS WRONG .

We do not debate that casually throwing a cat in a bin is wrong ,do we? but In this case suddenly we have to justify the whole of man's inhumanity to animals before we can say What a heartless bitch .


Great so we can never say that Bullfighting is wrong while we allow the fuckers in the Philippines to treat dogs how they do ?

What a great system that is; as long as somewhere in the world a worse example can be found then nobody should give a shit ?

Indeed - it's inhumanity and torture regardless. We should be giving a shit about it all and whenever we can.

I like the idea of publicizing crimes, but this one made a connection (a shitty one, I think) to a real person and has convicted her without even knowing for sure what happened.

I think what most people are objecting to is the fact that she allowed to have this video made, and appeared to enjoy making it. That's just sick and sadistic.
I think we are allowed to convict her of that.

If she had been filmed doing that without her knowledge, and/or been sombre and serious about doing it, even then people would still be upset about it.

[Animavore]

Wait! Why was I attacked on that one?

[Feck]

Cunt I cannot disagree with you ,about the release of information that may or not be the girls .I think I mentioned that earlier ?
But to use your example I do not doubt that slaughtermen share the same grim humour ,just like embalmers do BUT if you post a video of you throwing puppies in a river and making light of it then YOU ARE WRONG ! I do not even care if she laughed because she was deep down upset at what she was doing ,there were more humane ways to kill those pups and throwing them in the river like that was wrong .

[maiforpeace]

Wait! Why was I attacked on that one?

Because. You should be attacked and often.

[Animavore]

It's not the 60s any more. I thought the Irish were socially acceptable now?

[Feck]

Why? we don't need any more canals dug .

[Cunt]

Indeed - it's inhumanity and torture regardless. We should be giving a shit about it all and whenever we can.

Truly, but for me, this is kind of low on the torture scale.
Perhaps I have seen too much.
The fact that she seems to enjoy it doesn't faze me a bit...I saw much worse every day in a slaughterhouse (and I think it's often needed by those who kill)

I like the idea of publicizing crimes, but this one made a connection (a shitty one, I think) to a real person and has convicted her without even knowing for sure what happened.

I think what most people are objecting to is the fact that she allowed to have this video made, and appeared to enjoy making it. That's just sick and sadistic.
I think we are allowed to convict her of that.

Knowing the origins of the outrage (4chan) just what are you willing to stand behind?
I wouldn't even guarantee they are puppies, or that the 'girl' isn't a trap. Many assumptions have been made based on bullshit off /b/.

If she had been filmed doing that without her knowledge, and/or been sombre and serious about doing it, even then people would still be upset about it.

I have an idea that might help sandinista (or anyone else) make a real difference in the real world, without targetting a little girl.

In many of Canada's northern communities (hear that sandinista - right in your back door) there are regular cullings of feral dogs. People neglect their dogs (also spaying is tough to come by). The dogs form packs, then if you don't kill them they start robbing children and the elderly.

Since they are often shot by someone who doesn't want the job, you can guess how many suffer. If you can stop the problem somewhere else, you can prevent these dogs getting killed.

Regularly.

Often.

Come on. I fucking hate this, you do too.


Wat do?

[Robert_S]

I've been a vegetarian and I still don't eat meat very often.

Some people of that dietary persuasion are assholes, I think more than a few are in it for the self-righteousness of it. Still, that's not the majority of the ones I've encountered.


That said, I've seen meat eating people get very defensive very quick when I, or someone else brings up vegetarianism.

It's not an either/or thing with the visible warnings. It may be pressure from some vegetarian lobby making the "contains meat" labeling big, but it ain't them keeping the "contains peanuts" warning small.

"Some people of that dietary persuasion are assholes"? Of course. I mean, fuck, how many meat eaters are assholes. People can be assholes in general. I love all this "vegans/vegetarians" are assholes. Really?? I would be willing to bet my account here that there are more meat eating assholes than vegan assholes. Not literal assholes, like anuses...but fucking assholes. By world population alone thats gotta be true. If anyone thinks that "vegans/vegetarians" are loud mouthed or in your face about meat, its because "we" are up against an industry that is in our face constantly in the form or billions of dollars of advertising. Not sure about anywhere else, but over half the commercials on canadian tv are meat related. A "vegans/vegetarian" raising his or her voice is nothing when faced with that.

I was thinking of my early attempts to stop eating meat altogether. There were some vegans who got downright bitchy when I talked about my successes and failures without being sufficiently ashamed of myself for the latter.

But that's neither here nor there, you concentrated entirely on my caveat and seem to have glossed over my main point. That being, that vegetarians are getting unfairly blamed for the small type of the peanut warnings on food labels.

[Cunt]

Cunt I cannot disagree with you ,about the release of information that may or not be the girls .I think I mentioned that earlier ?
But to use your example I do not doubt that slaughtermen share the same grim humour ,just like embalmers do BUT if you post a video of you throwing puppies in a river and making light of it then YOU ARE WRONG ! I do not even care if she laughed because she was deep down upset at what she was doing ,there were more humane ways to kill those pups and throwing them in the river like that was wrong .

As to the slaughtermen, they regularly try to gross out the new people. Want to know specifics? Let me know if you do, or if 'farm life is different' explains it enough for you.

And if it's the best way she could think of? Lots of people would puke on themselves trying to hold a puppy down to cut it in half...just sayin...

I am not saying she is blameless, I am saying there isn't enough information to say who she is, or what her role was. I think tossing puppies into a river is gentler than some other methods. If I knew her I would certainly suggest a better one, but what sort of intervention do you think posting her 'dox' was meant to generate?

[Feck]

I know this seems a bit novel ..for an internet forum but could we drop this ?

It's not important on a global scale ,it's not happy or funny and even our differences about this are minor .

[maiforpeace]

I know this seems a bit novel ..for an internet forum but could we drop this ?

It's not important on a global scale ,it's not happy or funny and even our differences about this are minor .

It is very novel, considering some of the participants in this thread.

I know how you feel Feck as an animal lover. I will absolutely agree to drop it.

[Warren Dew]

I read the first couple chapters of that "book". wow. So full of errors and half truths I couldn't even believe it got published.

Of course it was. It was written by someone who had been vegetarian for years, after all!

Seriously, half truths are half truth. Lierre Keith certainly gets some things wrong, but she's fundamentally correct about the ecological disaster that is agriculture.

http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/201 ... rian-myth/

So this book offends me on two fronts, it offends my ethical sensibilities by justifying killing animals unnecessarily and having a flippant attitude toward human starvation.

He'll come around when he hears your "baby burger" solution, I'm sure!