HOME | DD

Undead567 In reply to LindArtz [2017-12-21 09:22:18 +0000 UTC]

It's cruel because it's not happening IN NATURE, wolf killing a deer in woods is one thing, human buying a snake and then buying dead rats to feed that shake-is completely another situation. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LindArtz In reply to Undead567 [2017-12-21 15:43:21 +0000 UTC]

I hear you, loud and clear. Still, the death is not in vain, like those animals killed to get their hides, for instance.  Was a time when even that was justified; when man lived a much harder life and there was true need; not like the synthetic materials we have today which makes killing for that purpose obsolete.

All of that said.  I agree. A snake should not be kept as a pet. And this wouldn't be necessary. ... Or wait... are we assuming this is a domesticated snake??  Having just checked under the picture, it doesn't say so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lechensko In reply to TheToxikFennec [2011-12-08 09:06:54 +0000 UTC]

It's not nature at all. Nature... is not a glass aquarium.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tigerchomped In reply to Lechensko [2013-03-12 06:48:59 +0000 UTC]

It is natural for snakes to eat rodents, though. Regardless of where it takes place - it being in an glass tank doesn't make any difference to the snake.

I assume that you don't like most technology today because hey, that isn't natural either? Or how about owning pets like rats and snakes not being natural? I don't understand the logic behind this argument really. Regardless of it being an old comment. :T

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lechensko In reply to tigerchomped [2013-03-12 07:34:13 +0000 UTC]

The fact that it's in an unnatural environment makes the entire "it's nature" argument redundant. It is like saying it's nature for someone to throw a human being off a boat into a frenzy of sharks. That's not a natural event, that's a man-made event. Snakes will hunt for animals themselves, they are not given to them on a silver platter in the wild by another species.

You should understand the difference between what is artificial and natural before making assumptions. And you should also know my position before making assumptions. I'm not against things that aren't natural... but I am against unnecessary cruelty and increased risk to pets. I just highlighted the ridiculousness of calling something nature when it isn't. And as for saying it doesn't make a difference to the snake, try saying that when the snake has puncture wounds from the animal's teeth. It's called "fight or flight", in nature animals have the opportunity to escape. In a glass aquarium, they cannot, in fact they are sometimes left with no choice but to fight back. Predators get injured by prey all the time in nature, so it's not exactly a good argument to use "it's nature" when that risk is increased tenfold because the prey has no space to get away as it would naturally in the wild.

Yes, having pets isn't really natural either. But that isn't the point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tigerchomped In reply to Lechensko [2013-03-12 17:14:52 +0000 UTC]

That's...not the same in the slightest. Snakes openly eat rodents, sharks do not normally see humans as prey. Just because it's in a tank doesn't mean it is any less natural for a snake to eat and kill a rodent.

Yes snakes are predators, just like rats can go and get their own food, as can dogs, cats, birds, and other animals that we keep as pets. Your point being? That it's cruel for a snake to eat a live rat? Not really, it isn't cruel and it certainly isn't as cruel as how the animals are treated in the slaughter houses. But that is as irrelevant as your 'throwing humans to sharks would be natural' argument, I suppose.

I don't really understand why you're making the argument that it isn't natural if you don't really care if things aren't natural?

I don't really support just anyone live feeding, I don't support the sadistic idiots who want to see their snakes kill something for shits and giggles. (A friend and I are actually saving two rats from that kind of situation this weekend.) But there are cases where live feeding is very much needed if you do not want to deprive the snake of a meal for weeks or 'force' a pre-killed rodent onto it. Yes it is a risk, and yes I know that rats do attack snakes. That's also natural.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lechensko In reply to tigerchomped [2013-03-12 21:01:00 +0000 UTC]

That's...not the same in the slightest. Snakes openly eat rodents, sharks do not normally see humans as prey

It's the same in principle. Sharks have been known to consume humans. If you don't like that analogy then I can use another man eater, the tiger.

Just because it's in a tank doesn't mean it is any less natural for a snake to eat and kill a rodent.

You do realise I'm not talking about the act of eating something in isolation, right? You'd might as well be saying eating in general is natural, but that's not the scope of the issue here.

Yes snakes are predators, just like rats can go and get their own food, as can dogs, cats, birds, and other animals that we keep as pets. Your point being? That it's cruel for a snake to eat a live rat? Not really, it isn't cruel and it certainly isn't as cruel as how the animals are treated in the slaughter houses. But that is as irrelevant as your 'throwing humans to sharks would be natural' argument, I suppose.

My point being is that it's pointless to call the act of someone throwing one animal to another nature, because it isn't. The whole situation is fabricated and simulated. This is exactly why I mentioned sharks, at this point we are just discussion semantics. I would say it's cruel depending on context.

I don't really understand why you're making the argument that it isn't natural if you don't really care if things aren't natural?

Because I was responding to someone who claimed throwing a rat to a snake is natural, when it isn't. You clearly have come in late enough not to realise that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tigerchomped In reply to Lechensko [2013-03-12 21:45:43 +0000 UTC]

"It's the same in principle. Sharks have been known to consume humans. If you don't like that analogy then I can use another man eater, the tiger."

No not really, a human is much different than a rat. If someone threw someone else to a tiger a shark that would be murder on the humans part. Surly you're not trying to compare throwing a rat to a snake to murder, you're saying it's cruel. And that may be, but nature is cruel either way. Rather or not a human forces the hand there isn't really worth arguing, giving a rat to a snake isn't the cruelest thing man has ever done.

I realize now that this isn't worth butting heads over, your comment was a year or so old, and we're not going to really meet common ground here. I apologize for bothering you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lechensko In reply to tigerchomped [2013-03-13 05:56:53 +0000 UTC]

No not really, a human is much different than a rat.

Do you even understand what the word "principle" means? They don't have to be the same animal. It's the same situation in principle.

If someone threw someone else to a tiger a shark that would be murder on the humans part. Surly you're not trying to compare throwing a rat to a snake to murder, you're saying it's cruel.

The distinction is irrelevant as we're not defining murder here, we're arguing the merits of what is natural and what isn't. That was the point of the analogy, to demonstrate that a controlled situation by man is far from natural. It is artificial.

And that may be, but nature is cruel either way. Rather or not a human forces the hand there isn't really worth arguing, giving a rat to a snake isn't the cruelest thing man has ever done.

Nature is cruel, but man doesn't have to be. That man has done worse things doesn't change the context of the issue that live feeding is indeed cruel.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tigerchomped In reply to Lechensko [2013-03-13 06:32:03 +0000 UTC]

Lol!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lechensko In reply to tigerchomped [2013-03-14 09:17:54 +0000 UTC]

Lol indeed.

You'd best not continue further, I've got all your arguments covered.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tigerchomped In reply to Lechensko [2013-03-14 16:24:38 +0000 UTC]

Sweetie this whole thing is really a difference of opinion really. You can stretch the lines of what is or isn't natural, but it doesn't really change the fact that a snake killing a rodent is still natural no matter where it takes place. At least not for me, and not for most people. You can walk away thinking that you've somehow proved your argument, or that you've got mine covered but you don't.

I stopped trying to argue with you because it's not going to get either of us anywhere and we're not going to change the others opinion. c:

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lechensko In reply to tigerchomped [2013-03-14 18:55:10 +0000 UTC]

There are clearly defined lines between what's artificial and what's natural.

You can stretch the lines of what is or isn't natural, but it doesn't really change the fact that a snake killing a rodent is still natural no matter where it takes place

Context means everything. You are speaking within the context of a snake eating something in isolation, I am speaking within a completely different context (which was what was being addressed initially).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bullter In reply to Czwartek [2010-02-25 10:26:09 +0000 UTC]

Dzięki
Pokazałem tylko wycinek z życia węża.
Niestety każda gadzinka musi coś jeść aby przetrwać.

Thanks
Showed only an excerpt from the life of the hose.
Unfortunately, each animal must eat something in order to survive

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Czwartek In reply to Bullter [2010-02-25 11:46:02 +0000 UTC]

Masz rację. Kto mówi, że zdjęcie to jest złe albo obrzydliwe, musi pamiętać gdy je szynkę albo kurczak, że ten też kiedyś był żywy.

A na pewno masz na myśli 'snake'. Słowo 'hose' znaczy 'wąż ogródowy'!

You're right. Whoever says that this picture is wrong or disgusting should remember next time they eat ham or chicken, that that too was once alive.

And you surely mean 'snake'. The word 'hose' means 'wąż ogródowy'!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WerewolfOfTheWater In reply to Roaring-Wind [2010-04-01 15:08:34 +0000 UTC]

But that's not nature.

It's throwing a domestic rat to a domestic snake in a box with no chance to escape.

We do call it abuse when we inhumanely kill an animal and torture it before it dies, though.

We're humans, we know better. If we're gonna intervene in a snake's feeding process, then why not pre-kill it to be humane? And yes, snakes will eat dead mice. Predators eat dead things all the time as they're opportunists.

👍: 0 ⏩: 7

Gashu-Monsata In reply to WerewolfOfTheWater [2010-11-20 22:10:39 +0000 UTC]

I fed my lizard small live insects that you could buy from a pet store as food dedicated to reptiles... is that cruel too?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WerewolfOfTheWater In reply to Gashu-Monsata [2010-11-21 00:22:02 +0000 UTC]

Insects don't have pain receptors, also this comment was made in April, find some other old comments to sift through if you're that bored.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gashu-Monsata In reply to WerewolfOfTheWater [2010-11-21 00:28:55 +0000 UTC]

Eh, I didn't really check the date

But anyways, I was just wondering, if that's the argument, does that mean that it's okay to kill someone who feels no pain? It's rare, but people can be born with no sense of touch.

I'm neither for nor against this, don't get me wrong, I'm just interested. I don't agree with what's in the image, but... I can't really tell if the rat is alive. How do you tell?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WerewolfOfTheWater In reply to Gashu-Monsata [2010-11-21 00:30:44 +0000 UTC]

You might as well be asking why it's wrong to stomp on a kitten, or throw puppies against brick walls if it's okay to smash flies.

But are they sentient? Having no sense of touch doesn't mean you don't feel anything, just not physically.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gashu-Monsata In reply to WerewolfOfTheWater [2010-11-21 00:40:14 +0000 UTC]

Nah, it's just people like that are born with no sense of pain... but you may be right there. It would affect them mentally.

I remember my brother burning ants with a magnifying glass and the sun years ago, and they actually tried to run away from the light, and seemed to curl up in pain when they were burnt. I think they have some sort of reaction to pain.

I don't think that rat was alive at the time the photo was taken, but it could have been killed by the snake beforehand... we'll never know

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WerewolfOfTheWater In reply to Gashu-Monsata [2010-11-21 00:46:13 +0000 UTC]

Well either way rats are pretty highly intelligent, the only animal proven to have some type of laughter and they have the emotional maturity of two year olds, so you can't really compare them to insects all that well

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gashu-Monsata In reply to WerewolfOfTheWater [2010-11-21 00:50:58 +0000 UTC]

Really? That explains why all those scientific tests are always done on rats before humans.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WerewolfOfTheWater In reply to Gashu-Monsata [2010-11-21 01:28:47 +0000 UTC]

Yeah pretty much. Rats are actually a lot smarter than most people think

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tide-Of-Warm-Blood In reply to WerewolfOfTheWater [2010-10-12 19:51:48 +0000 UTC]

Things are justified if it's nature. The snake eats the rat; it's the circle of life.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WerewolfOfTheWater In reply to Tide-Of-Warm-Blood [2010-10-12 21:47:51 +0000 UTC]

Species also kill members of their own species all the time in nature, that doesn't justify humans killing other humans.

Sorry but no.

Also old comment is old.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tide-Of-Warm-Blood In reply to WerewolfOfTheWater [2010-10-12 21:55:37 +0000 UTC]

Humans are a higher species. To say it basically, humans are smarter than other animals.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1