HOME | DD
Bullter —
8.Tiger python_attack
[NSFW]
Published: 2008-07-14 16:40:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 29830; Favourites: 1029; Downloads: 230
Redirect to original
Description
Python molurus bivittatus and rattRelated content
Comments: 1833
No. I don't support PETA. Being against animal cruelty does not make someone a "peta bitch."
Please reply when you actually have something of substance to say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You're right, feeding a rat to a snake has nothing to do with animal cruelty. But feeding a LIVE rat to a snake, putting the snake at risk of being injured and needlessly torturing the rat, has everything to do with animal cruelty.
If you don't want to do anything but toss around ad-hominem attacks rather than actually understand the argument, or actually read what I posted, then I'm not going to bother.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Wow. You're really digging up some BS for this one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So much for you wanting to shift to pleasant conversation, I guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think you know what trolling is.
So far you're the only one who's attempting to "troll" and you're failing miserably at it.
If you think that anyone who is against animal cruelty is a supporter of PETA, then already you've demonstrated you know nothing about animal welfare issues, so there's no point in discussing this with you. Go do your research then come back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You didn't ever say that starving it was the best way to go. I was just assuming that you believed that. Thank you for attempting to prove me wrong.
Okay, scenario for you: Ten thousand rats, captured from the wild waiting in boxes as the line moves, not being fed or anything, potentially waiting weeks before eventually being loaded on a conveyor belt in wait for a little robotic arm to snap their necks?
Or ten thousand rats captured in the wild and left in pet stores, fed and watered for however long, for their intended purchasers to do whatever with.
Chances are, some of the rats in the second scenario survived, while none in the first did.
By your logic, is something like this: [link] also abuse?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Feeder rats are NOT captured in the wild. They are domesticated rats, exactly the same as pet rats. Feeder rats are not a different species from pet rats and they come from the same breeders. In fact sometimes pet shops will just buy rats then put the prettier ones on display as pets and the others sold as feeders.
What do you do when the live rat decides to fight back by the way? Do you let the snake die of its injuries? After all that happens in the wild too!
I guess dog fighting is okay too. After all dogs would fight in the wild so why not have them fight in captivity
And no. Insects don't have pain receptors. Try again~
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually I think certain insects do have pain receptors. I can't recall which ones though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If feeder rats aren't captured in the wild, and are bred for this purpose, than what's your major problem with this shot?
The rat would be little match for the snake. Can the rat even attempt to fight back against a mechanical arm? You just invalidated yourself, congratulations.
Dogs do fight in the wild, however, dogfightng is the same thing as cockfighting, it's blood sport. It's a competition that has nothing to do in nature, as these dogs are starved and beaten and mean, unlike what would happen in nature.
And, for the record, my four dogs fight all the time. Yes, I do break them up because I care for them, and none of them should treat the other as food, as they do get fed.
By what logic do insects not have pain receptors? Have you ever stepped on a cockroach and had it live, only to frantically scurry away? Are you, in fact, an insect?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My problem with live feeding is that an inhumane method is used when a humane one is readily available.
How did I invalidate myself? I never claimed it was natural to kill a rat with a mechanical arm. I merely said that throwing a domestic rat to a snake when it has no chance to escape is not nature either, so the argument that it's justified because it's "natural" fails. It's not natural, it's 100% HUMAN CONTROLLED, that means we can decide how humane the death is.
What makes you think being SLOWLY KILLED by a snake is better than being instantly killed? Because it's more "natural?" So the fuck what? It may be "natural" for a woman to feel pain during childbirth but does that stop us from giving her drugs to dull the pain? NO. We are humans, not snakes, we're capable of knowing that there are more humane ways to do things. If a humane option is readily available then you have no way to justify the inhumane option.
There is absolutely no reason to feed a snake a live rat. It not only gives the rat a slow and painful death, but also puts the snake at risk because the rat can fight back and kill your snake. It's better for both the prey and the predator if you give it pre-killed prey.
Besides, even if you do have to buy a live rat for some reason, is it really that hard for you to give it a quick death before feeding it to your snake?
"By what logic do insects not have pain receptors?"
The fact that they haven't been fucking found in insects. Rats have been proven to have the emotional maturity of 2 year old children. Comparing them to insects is fucking retarded. Do you go around stomping kittens under your shoes? No? Why not? According to you they're exactly the same as insects after all!
Have fun rushing your snake to the vet when one of the rats you feed it decides to stick its incisors into its lungs, I guess. Actually, nevermind, you'd let it die right, since that happens in the wild.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
I take it you gave up? Glad you know when you've lost too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What the hell are you talking about?
You don't win a debate because your opponent hasn't replied before a 30 minute time span. Talk about logic fail.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mmhm. If I hadn't said anything you would never have replied anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you have no concern about animal welfare at all, then there's no point in discussing the matter further with you. The subject of live feeding VS pre-killed feeding pertains to humane treatment of domesticated animals in the interest of animal welfare. If you think it's okay to kill or torture whatever animals you want for any reason you want, (as evidence by you shooting stray cats) then there's simply no reasoning with you about this subject, as a debate on the merits of animal welfare in general is an entirely different subject all together.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In the interest of animal welfare? The animal being fed is FOR THIS PURPOSE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you've read my posts, you'd know I was never debating against feeding animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is it inhumane than, to eat a steak?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Depends on whether or not the animal that the steak came from was killed humanely.
What is your point here exactly?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You want to know how they kill cattle? They string them upside down by their legs, bash their heads in, and gut them. In the process, the animal voids its bowels and shits on itself. There is no way for the animal to escape, and no way for it to fight back.
My point is this: There is little difference whether or not the rat is alive or dead, it is still going to die.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm aware of how cows are killed. I'm also aware that there are meat farms that are humane and you can buy from certain stores to make sure you're getting humanely killed meat.
Yes. So? Everyone is going to die. Including you. That doesn't mean it would be okay for me to torture you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are meat farms that only 'humanely' kill their livestock, but if you order a steak at a restaurant, are you sure that you're getting humanely killed meat? No, you are not, even if they say so.
Honestly, I would enjoy it if you tortured me to death, love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay? And how do you know what my meat-eating habits are? Oh, wait, you don't. So you have absolutely no point to make here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't using "You" to imply YOU were doing something. Once again, you're taking things out of context, probably intentionally to avoid making a point I will simply throw in your face anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then in that case, you are holding me responsible for things other people do and expecting me to argue against claims I've never disputed. So instead you're just creating a strawman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, not at all. Reread the posts, and quit grasping at 'straws'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So, using robotics to kill something is far more humane than feeding it to something that would have eaten it.
You brought up the ability to fight back. You said "What do you do when the live rat decides to fight back by the way?" as if that was relevant to whether live feeding is humane or not. The rat cannot fight back either way.
What makes you believe that the rat is killed quickly?
About childbirth, many women do not take drugs for several reasons, or have C-Sections. Many women opt for natural childbirth, a subject which is irrelevant in the scope of this poll.
I'm sorry, where do you get the idea that humans are not simply animals to start with? Smarter? maybe. People like you leave me in doubt though. At least you can type properly. +1 Internet to you.
Why would someone kill a rat before feeding it to the snake, instead of simply buying a dead rat instead? That's completely idiotic.
Just because human or mammal-like pain receptors have not been found in insects doesn't mean that they cannot feel pain. It simply means they do not have similar pain receptors. I take it you're the type of person that believes everything you read.
By your logic, that means that it's inhumane to kill two year old girls too? Oh, shit, I should totally go hide those bodies in my backyard better.
No, I haven't stomped a cat with my shoe. They're quite a bit larger than cockroaches, therefore, unstoppable. I have, although, shot a few of the stray cats for digging in my trash can. I fed one to my mastiff yesterday.
If the snake gets hurt by the rat, it deserves to die. Survival of the fittest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"So, using robotics to kill something is far more humane than feeding it to something that would have eaten it."
What difference does it make whether they are robotics or something that would have eaten it when it comes to how much they suffer before they die? Either way both situations are 100% human controlled environments, there is no excuse to go with the more inhumane option.
"You brought up the ability to fight back."
No, I brought up the ability to escape when pointing out the fact that a rat being thrown to a snake in a glass box is not natural because the person I was replying to tried to justify this by saying it was natural. Perhaps you should try to actually read posts in-context instead of simply aruging against things completely out of context so you understand what the ACTUAL POINT WAS.
"The rat cannot fight back either way."
Do you just lack reading comprehension or are you deliberately ignoring the point? The person I was replying to said it's okay because it's natural. I said, no, it's actually not natural because it's a 100% human-controlled situation where the rat cannot escape. When you quoted me talking about fighting back, that is an entirely different context in which I was talking about the risk associated with giving your snake a trapped live rat in that it can fight back and severely injure or kill the snake.
"What makes you believe that the rat is killed quickly?"
What are you even talking about? I am saying they SHOULD BE killed quickly and there's no excuse to not do so when small animals are pretty easily quickly killed. What makes you think pre-killed feeder rats aren't killed quickly? What benefit would there be to slowly suffocating a rat before killing it?
"Many women opt for natural childbirth, a subject which is irrelevant in the scope of this poll."
"I'm sorry, where do you get the idea that humans are not simply animals to start with?"
Where do you get the idea that I've said humans are not animals? Again do even know how to fucking read? The fact that we're smarter however makes a difference because we are capable of knowing how to kill something humanely and recognize the fact that inhumane killing isn't always necessary.
"Why would someone kill a rat before feeding it to the snake, instead of simply buying a dead rat instead? That's completely idiotic."
Why would someone feed a live rat to a snake putting their snake at risk and needlessly torturing the rat, instead of buying a dead rat or quickly killing the live one they bought? That's completely idiotic.
"Just because human or mammal-like pain receptors have not been found in insects doesn't mean that they cannot feel pain."
I never said "human-like" or "mammal-like" I simply said pain receptors, period. If you'd like to explain how anything feels pain without pain receptors then you are welcome to try.
"I take it you're the type of person that believes everything you read."
So believing facts is better than simply believing whatever I feel like believing to justify torturing animals?
"By your logic, that means that it's inhumane to kill two year old girls too? Oh, shit, I should totally go hide those bodies in my backyard better."
"They're quite a bit larger than cockroaches, therefore, unstoppable. "
They're small enough to fit under a shoe relatively easily therefore stompable.
"I have, although, shot a few of the stray cats for digging in my trash can."
Good to know you kill things in defense of your garbage
"If the snake gets hurt by the rat, it deserves to die. Survival of the fittest."
Domestic animals are not subject to natural selection. As a pet owner you have a responsibility to care for it. If it's about survival of the fittest then why not simply release the snake into the wild to fend for itself? Why care for it as a pet? That was a pretty retarded statement and you should feel retarded for saying it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Perhaps you should try to actually read posts in-context instead of simply aruging against things completely out of context so you understand what the ACTUAL POINT WAS."
AD-HOMINEM FALLACY!11!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, advice, not an attack
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's an objectionable point that undermines his claim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It undermines his claim because his claim failed to take what I said in-context, therefore he was arguing against things I never said which technically constitutes a strawman.
Sooo...that's an ad-hominem fallacy about as much as you calling me ignorant was.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And there we have irony.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes and if I know what you were calling me ignorant over I wouldn't have accused you of making an ad-hominem fallacy.
I'm not really interested in you being ironic, I'm pretty sure we've already established the above, and I don't see a need for you to run it into the ground.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You do know.
Then why did you pick me up on it? Perhaps if you'd taken it in context there would be no need to accuse me of making an ad-hominem fallacy at all. And don't you dare accuse me of running anything into the ground, mrs out of context ad-hominem fallacy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. I DO know. Present tense.
How am I running that into the ground? You're the only one who keeps bringing it up now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Incorrect. I brought it up the last time, that does not mean I'm the one who's been spouting it like a fucking life line for three hours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You replied to two comments I made to somebody else bringing it up. If anyone was spouting it after the matter had already been settled it was you, sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Six times? That was one time away from the magic number that would have made you win the argument. Oh, man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All of those times were before we had settled the issue, dearie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You claim the issues settled, then you lose, hun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That doesn't make any sense. I'm wondering what Internet rules you're reading that say what conditions make you lose or win at internet arguments. But whatever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are no rules.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was mocking you -.-
"If you don't want to do anything but toss around ad-hominem attacks rather than actually understand the argument, or actually read what I posted, then I'm not going to bother."
"But just an heads up, more ad-hominem attacks won't accomplish that."
"In fact, your ad-hominem fallacy is only proving you to be ignorant, really. Attacking the person instead of the argument just means your argument is weak."
"If anything this makes you ignorant since you keep using this as an ad-hominem fallacy instead of addressing the actual argument."
"An ad-hominem fallacy is when you attack the person instead of the argument. Which is what you did. You weren't addressing the argument at all."
"If you don't want to do anything but toss around ad-hominem attacks rather than actually understand the argument, or actually read what I posted, then I'm not going to bother."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know you were. That doesn't mean it isn't you bringing it up.
And I believe all of those things were said before we had settled it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was not aware it had been settled. And when you say doesn't matter, you could have said it yesterday, and it would still have been WAAAAY overused.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>