Poll: Woman guts horse, takes pictures in it's carcass

[andrat]

Little weird but hey. The horse was already dead, what's the big deal. Not like the horse can get pissed off.

 

[Zeema]

Snip

I give up. I just hope that you never, ever, ever wind up in close quarters with a potentially dangerous animal, because your romanticized view of nature could get you killed.

yeah it would kill and i stated that alot and you didn't notice it there violent if you stuffed 2 humans in a room they would fight. you stuff 2 animals in a room and they will fight. because they don't wanna die they want to live so they will kill the other for food [in most cases]

and i stated how they have to survive like us.
how do i have a romanticised view of nature. i care for animals and want to make sure there okay i don't like seeing animals killed for the fun of it and then used for some guys weird photo collection.



and plus you gave up so i win this argument

 

[Zeema]

A animal won't attack you for the sheer fun of it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16762_the-6-biggest-assholes-in-animal-kingdom.html

Fun fact... dolphins rape each other and have been recorded killing each other. Sorry to wreck your day.

This news story this chick did it for fun and killed a defenseless horse
And then treated it like a free publicy and a couch

And the thing is alot of animals go for the throat killing there prey as fast as possible so the cubs or the animal can eat it.

They shot the horse that was about to be put down anyways, with intentions of eating it. How much more humane (I'm sorry, "noble") do you want them to be? The whole "go inside the horse" thing was a weird spur-of-the-moment WTF moment, but they still ate the horsemeat afterwards. So... you're wrong. Full stop. Try reading the article.

And animals don't care if the prey is dead or alive, they just care if it's not moving. Ever read "Life of Pi"? I recommend it, especially the bit where the hyena guts a zebra with a shattered leg slowly over the course of two to four days and the zebra stays alive for all of it.

I don't study marine life and its not like all animals are happy and joyful and peace ful.

plus they do it because its there instinct and thats what they have seen of other dolphins and they get really horny in the mating seasons. its not wrecking my day because i already know of the harshness of nature.

Because i believe a corpse of any kind should be treated with respect. people should have more common sense and respect for animals.

You make it sound like i have no idea of how violent nature could be when i have a very good understanding of which.

EDIT: Didn't see the monkey link

Yeah im not surprised by this. Ever been to a Dog mauling of a baby yeah thats fucked i get it. IT happens im not surprised at all

to re reiterate im not oblivious to the violence of nature

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

SNIP

A wolf would tear you apart in screaming agony and the pack chow down on you whether you're still alive or not. How is "Rip it to shreds because it's on my land" better than "We're gonna put it down and eat it anyway, have a poke around"? You're living in a fantasy world and giving animals human characteristics that they simply just don't have.

A wolf would go for your throat stop you moving so there cubs will eat. Plus you would either passout from fear or pain on any case. If I walked into your home you would tell
Me to piss off

A wolf would attack you if your in it's terrtory and in rare
Cases they would warn you. They do it to defend there homes and family's.

And animals are quite close to animals alot have human charcterstics. Monkeys are capable of playing chess and typing on a type writer.
Wolves are terrortiral based attackers like humans and there countries. Also you can assimilate yourself into wolf packs as long as you show respect towards other wolves they will respect you.

I reckon you r the one in the fantasy land

[also I'm typing this on a iPhone so if there any grammar mistakes sorry bout it ]

here. took me 10 seconds on youtube. A deer getting eaten alive by wolves, you can quite clearly see it moving. Its graphic so ill put it in spoiler tags.

Spoiler

They dont give a damn if its dead as long as its unable to escape.

yeh i would do the same thing its called surviving i am aware of it not being the most clean way to kill someone but at least they do it. not all animal's can be Vegan

they don't really have access to guns to put down a foe quickly. its what they do i can't say that its wrong because its not its how they have to live

Humans do the same thing too alot of animals don't get treated fairly and abused and messed up things happen to them. all the time its not for survival [in most cases] but for fun. They don't kill things for fun they do it for either there Pride or there Hungry and need to feed there pack mates

actually they can. Most times this doesnt happen. Wolves know how to grab an animal by the neck and shake until its neck breaks(with something small) or constrict the air flow so it suffocates. And they will kill the creature quickly if it seems to be about to get away, usually thats what happens and an animal being alive but unable to move when they begin to chow down is unlucky. The animal being alive is irrelevant to the wolf, the only thing that matters to a wolf is the instinct that says 'can I now stop expending energy and start eating?'

I do believe a wolf can bond with a person and love them if its anything like a dog, and I do believe animals have emotions. But they definitly dont respect their prey, and it seems to take a lot of bonding to make them feel any empathy whatsoever for another creature. Unlike humans who can feel sorry for strangers.

 

[lacktheknack]

A animal won't attack you for the sheer fun of it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16762_the-6-biggest-assholes-in-animal-kingdom.html

Fun fact... dolphins rape each other and have been recorded killing each other. Sorry to wreck your day.

This news story this chick did it for fun and killed a defenseless horse
And then treated it like a free publicy and a couch

And the thing is alot of animals go for the throat killing there prey as fast as possible so the cubs or the animal can eat it.

They shot the horse that was about to be put down anyways, with intentions of eating it. How much more humane (I'm sorry, "noble") do you want them to be? The whole "go inside the horse" thing was a weird spur-of-the-moment WTF moment, but they still ate the horsemeat afterwards. So... you're wrong. Full stop. Try reading the article.

And animals don't care if the prey is dead or alive, they just care if it's not moving. Ever read "Life of Pi"? I recommend it, especially the bit where the hyena guts a zebra with a shattered leg slowly over the course of two to four days and the zebra stays alive for all of it.

I don't study marine life and its not like all animals are happy and joyful and peace ful.

plus they do it because its there instinct and thats what they have seen of other dolphins and they get really horny in the mating seasons. its not wrecking my day because i already know of the harshness of nature.

Because i believe a corpse of any kind should be treated with respect. people should have more common sense and respect for animals.

You make it sound like i have no idea of how violent nature could be when i have a very good understanding of which.

No, you're trying to make out that animals are noble and respectful of their prey, which I'm trying to tell you is a crock of crap.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Yes.

But you're kinda late. They already made a law for it. Please look up "animal abuse".

 

[Zeema]

A animal won't attack you for the sheer fun of it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16762_the-6-biggest-assholes-in-animal-kingdom.html

Fun fact... dolphins rape each other and have been recorded killing each other. Sorry to wreck your day.

This news story this chick did it for fun and killed a defenseless horse
And then treated it like a free publicy and a couch

And the thing is alot of animals go for the throat killing there prey as fast as possible so the cubs or the animal can eat it.

They shot the horse that was about to be put down anyways, with intentions of eating it. How much more humane (I'm sorry, "noble") do you want them to be? The whole "go inside the horse" thing was a weird spur-of-the-moment WTF moment, but they still ate the horsemeat afterwards. So... you're wrong. Full stop. Try reading the article.

And animals don't care if the prey is dead or alive, they just care if it's not moving. Ever read "Life of Pi"? I recommend it, especially the bit where the hyena guts a zebra with a shattered leg slowly over the course of two to four days and the zebra stays alive for all of it.

I don't study marine life and its not like all animals are happy and joyful and peace ful.

plus they do it because its there instinct and thats what they have seen of other dolphins and they get really horny in the mating seasons. its not wrecking my day because i already know of the harshness of nature.

Because i believe a corpse of any kind should be treated with respect. people should have more common sense and respect for animals.

You make it sound like i have no idea of how violent nature could be when i have a very good understanding of which.

No, you're trying to make out that animals are noble and respectful of their prey, which I'm trying to tell you is a crock of crap.

im trying to state that Animals are Noble and respectful creatures period. Just because there violent doesn't mean they can't be noble and respectful.

how else can they kill a animal? they have to do it its live or die.

and 90% would pick live

 

[A Distant Star]

It's unpleasant and certainly not something I approve of, but as some one who has eaten horse meat in the past, I would be a hypocrite if I got to up in arms about this.

 

[lacktheknack]

im trying to state that Animals are Noble and respectful creatures period. Just because there violent doesn't mean they can't be noble and respectful.

how else can they kill a animal? they have to do it its live or die.

and 90% would pick live

BUT THEY AREN'T NOBLE OR RESPECTFUL.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noble

Definition four. An animal only looks to survive, and thus is not noble.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respectful

An animal is defined by non deference. They don't care about the opponent's wishes, or even acknowledge them. They're incredibly self-centered.

Besides, a noble/respectful kill would be a quick one with minimal pain. The fact a chimp ripped a baby from its mothers arms and devoured it alive shows that it is neither. And that's not an anomaly, you said it yourself.

Yes.

But you're kinda late. They already made a law for it. Please look up "animal abuse".

How does one abuse a dead animal? They shot it for food instead of having it put down, which is about as non-abusive as a killing can be...

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Yes.

But you're kinda late. They already made a law for it. Please look up "animal abuse".

How does one abuse a dead animal? They shot it for food instead of having it put down, which is about as non-abusive as a killing can be...

"A Portland woman who bought a horse, killed it, gutted it and posed naked for photos inside the carcass"

Please point out where, in that sentence, they mentioned they harvested the horse for food. I've heard of stories where kids decapitated cats and kept their corpses for their own morbid entertainment. That fell under animal abuse.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes.

But you're kinda late. They already made a law for it. Please look up "animal abuse".

How does one abuse a dead animal? They shot it for food instead of having it put down, which is about as non-abusive as a killing can be...

"A Portland woman who bought a horse, killed it, gutted it and posed naked for photos inside the carcass"

Please point out where, in that sentence, they mentioned they harvested the horse for food. I've heard of stories where kids decapitated cats and kept their corpses for their own morbid entertainment. That fell under animal abuse.

It's not in that sentence, it's in this one.

Lottin reportedly told investigators that they wanted to humanely kill the horse and eat it ? and she wanted to feel what it would be like to be inside the dead horse.

Please read the article in the OP. It stops you from saying wrong things.

 

[Thyunda]

The morality point - also well worded and rational, but one I disagree with. Morality IS subjective, but on the point of pointless corpse desecration, there is something objectively wrong with this.

I wonder if you can prove this.

If not, I'll have to assume you made it up.

If I can prove there is something objectively wrong with corpse desecration? Alright. You prove that it's objectively right not to shoot people in the kneecaps and I'll prove it's objectively wrong to desecrate their corpse afterwards.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making unsupported claims.

What makes you think I consider it right or wrong to shoot people in the kneecaps?

Because there is no objective neutral. You're arguing a point for the sake of arguing, and you won't achieve anything like that. Stop being difficult, just accept the meaning behind what I said. I may have been hyperbolic in saying 'objectively wrong', but that's irrelevant. Why not take up knitting?

 

[Thyunda]

The morality point - also well worded and rational, but one I disagree with. Morality IS subjective, but on the point of pointless corpse desecration, there is something objectively wrong with this.

I wonder if you can prove this.

If not, I'll have to assume you made it up.

If I can prove there is something objectively wrong with corpse desecration? Alright. You prove that it's objectively right not to shoot people in the kneecaps and I'll prove it's objectively wrong to desecrate their corpse afterwards.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making unsupported claims.

What makes you think I consider it right or wrong to shoot people in the kneecaps?

Because there is no objective neutral. You're arguing a point for the sake of arguing, and you won't achieve anything like that. Stop being difficult, just accept the meaning behind what I said. I may have been hyperbolic in saying 'objectively wrong', but that's irrelevant. Why not take up knitting?

Hyperbolic? You set up morality as subjective, then specifically used the word "objective" to describe something you saw as wrong.

Stop being difficult? Stop being a sore loser, and accept that you made an error.

Contrary to what people seem to believe, there IS such a thing as objective morality. It's just finding what is right and what is wrong that is the hard part. That's why philosophy exists. That's why religion exists. All in the search of objective morality.

Naturally, you can't FIND objective morality, because every time you get somewhere or make a claim, you get some ignorant keyboard warrior leaping up to decry your claim because you haven't got any 'evidence'.
Religion got by without evidence for two thousand years, I don't see why I'm any different. We both discuss metaphysical points, therefore I only require metaphysical evidence, which I happen to possess, only you can't see it, because morality is 'subjective'.

 

[Thyunda]

The morality point - also well worded and rational, but one I disagree with. Morality IS subjective, but on the point of pointless corpse desecration, there is something objectively wrong with this.

I wonder if you can prove this.

If not, I'll have to assume you made it up.

If I can prove there is something objectively wrong with corpse desecration? Alright. You prove that it's objectively right not to shoot people in the kneecaps and I'll prove it's objectively wrong to desecrate their corpse afterwards.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making unsupported claims.

What makes you think I consider it right or wrong to shoot people in the kneecaps?

Because there is no objective neutral. You're arguing a point for the sake of arguing, and you won't achieve anything like that. Stop being difficult, just accept the meaning behind what I said. I may have been hyperbolic in saying 'objectively wrong', but that's irrelevant. Why not take up knitting?

Hyperbolic? You set up morality as subjective, then specifically used the word "objective" to describe something you saw as wrong.

Stop being difficult? Stop being a sore loser, and accept that you made an error.

Contrary to what people seem to believe, there IS such a thing as objective morality. It's just finding what is right and what is wrong that is the hard part. That's why philosophy exists. That's why religion exists. All in the search of objective morality.

Naturally, you can't FIND objective morality, because every time you get somewhere or make a claim, you get some ignorant keyboard warrior leaping up to decry your claim because you haven't got any 'evidence'.
Religion got by without evidence for two thousand years, I don't see why I'm any different. We both discuss metaphysical points, therefore I only require metaphysical evidence, which I happen to possess, only you can't see it, because morality is 'subjective'.

Religion? Hilarious.

You know what, I give. You win.
If it means I don't have to discuss this nonsense, I'll surrender.

I'm sorry, have you another attempt at condescension to put on the table? Go right ahead, let's see what you have. I would be offended if you didn't.

 

[Thyunda]

The morality point - also well worded and rational, but one I disagree with. Morality IS subjective, but on the point of pointless corpse desecration, there is something objectively wrong with this.

I wonder if you can prove this.

If not, I'll have to assume you made it up.

If I can prove there is something objectively wrong with corpse desecration? Alright. You prove that it's objectively right not to shoot people in the kneecaps and I'll prove it's objectively wrong to desecrate their corpse afterwards.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making unsupported claims.

What makes you think I consider it right or wrong to shoot people in the kneecaps?

Because there is no objective neutral. You're arguing a point for the sake of arguing, and you won't achieve anything like that. Stop being difficult, just accept the meaning behind what I said. I may have been hyperbolic in saying 'objectively wrong', but that's irrelevant. Why not take up knitting?

Hyperbolic? You set up morality as subjective, then specifically used the word "objective" to describe something you saw as wrong.

Stop being difficult? Stop being a sore loser, and accept that you made an error.

Contrary to what people seem to believe, there IS such a thing as objective morality. It's just finding what is right and what is wrong that is the hard part. That's why philosophy exists. That's why religion exists. All in the search of objective morality.

Naturally, you can't FIND objective morality, because every time you get somewhere or make a claim, you get some ignorant keyboard warrior leaping up to decry your claim because you haven't got any 'evidence'.
Religion got by without evidence for two thousand years, I don't see why I'm any different. We both discuss metaphysical points, therefore I only require metaphysical evidence, which I happen to possess, only you can't see it, because morality is 'subjective'.

Religion? Hilarious.

You know what, I give. You win.
If it means I don't have to discuss this nonsense, I'll surrender.

I'm sorry, have you another attempt at condescension to put on the table? Go right ahead, let's see what you have. I would be offended if you didn't.

Condescension towards you? No. Condescension towards religion? Yes.

Religion "gets by" without evidence in the same way New-Age medicine does; that is to say, people of intellectual reflection and honesty don't take it seriously.

Why? Because religion doesn't try to find what is right and wrong. It simply states it, and we are expected to follow along.

You say we discuss metaphysical points, and therefore metaphysical evidence is all that is needed. I say there is no morality, that no one has the basis for determining what it is, if it exists, and that any discussion on what morality is is so much useless posturing, assertions made but not capable of being defended.

...But people of intellectual reflection and honesty can still believe in God without losing all of their points. I'm not religious myself...not at all...but I do not discount somebody's opinion based on one belief that I cannot objectively disprove. Just like we can't disprove that we're all the product of some demon's imagination.

However. That's pushing it a little far. So many philosophers have so many valid points on morality, and to say they're all wrong simply because you don't believe in morality is a little bit silly.