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
Too long, didn't read. It was probably all bullshit anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Considering that I've debunked every single point you've made, I really don't think so.
Plus, you're "giving up," which you yourself implied means you lose the argument, so good going shooting yourself in the foot there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I didn't give up. LOL. I just refused to read your 'well thought out' points. The one thing you haven't addressed is how feeding an animal to another animal when both animals are in captivity and the animal being fed to the other animal is, in fact, meant for this purpose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you didn't give up, then great. I don't care. But don't claim that I "gave up" because I didn't reply for a whole 30 minutes, and then refuse to read my post. That's just retarded and hypocritical of you.
"The one thing you haven't addressed is how feeding an animal to another animal when both animals are in captivity and the animal being fed to the other animal is, in fact, meant for this purpose."
Who says they are "meant" for this purpose? Domestic rats are technically meant to be pets, but domestic rats are what get fed to snakes. Even if they were "meant" for this purpose, that still doesn't justify live feeding instead of feeding them pre-killed. I never once said that it was wrong to feed a snake a rat. Only that it's wrong to feed it while the rat is still alive and subject the snake to needless risk and the rat to needless suffering.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
YOU DON'T CARE?!?! THEN WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE?!?!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I said I don't care in response to him not "giving up." I didn't say I didn't care about the discussion 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Try reading in-context, it helps a lot."
AD-HOMINEM FALLACY!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That was advice, dear, not an ad-hominem
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AD-HOMINEM!!!!!
*fetches a torch and pitchfork*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Who says they are 'meant' for this purpose?' You did. "Feeder Rats".
FEEDER.
FEEDER. implies they are meant to be EATEN.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Plus, the term "feeder rat" does not imply that it's meant to be fed to a snake alive. It can very well be killed before doing so. Even if you buy a live rat it can still be killed before given to a snake. So you still aren't refuting what I am actually arguing against.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not attempting to refute you, simply trying to understand what the difference is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never claimed there was a difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, you did. Go back and read the conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why? You yourself said you refuse to read my posts, so why should I re-read yours?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I refuse to read an essay of bullshit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then don't reply to the essay of bullshit if you have nothing to say about it. Simple as that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I was hoping that you would restate your points in a readable format instead of a two page long wall of bullshit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not really all that long. If you can't read then that's not really my problem. If you want to know what my points are, then read them. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't understand anything longer than a couple of sentences.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, you stupid cunt, I'm dyslexic. If you can't understand that not everybody can read through pages of bullshit, than you're ignorant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry that I couldn't magically detect your dyslexia from the Internet. I don't see how not having psychic powers makes me ignorant. If you had simply said "I have dyslexia, could you word that differently please" I may have complied and everything would have been much easier hm? But instead you chose to call what I wrote "bullshit" without mentioning your dyslexia until right now. So really, excuse me if I'm less than sympathetic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And excuse me if I'm less than sympathetic to your ignorance and arrogance.
I have a question for you, though. [link] I just masturbated to this, does that make me psychotic? I simply love the image.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol, nice try trying to troll me with a shock image, but I've seen a lot worse.
And I dunno, maybe. Maybe it just means you have a guro fetish and are into bestiality. Which I guess would mean you are psychotic, but fuck if I know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I feed kittens to my dogs. It's up to you to decide if I'm psychotic or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I doubt it, you're probably just trolling hoping I'll be shocked, lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I said feeder rats as in rats that are sold in pet shops as feeder rats. I never said they were "meant" to be eaten as they are still domesticated rats bred to be PETS.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You said "Feeder Rat," which technically contradicts everything you just said. kindly allow me to point out an ad-hominem fallacy for you, as it seems to be your current favorite word you just pulled out of a psychology textbook.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I said "feeder rat" I never said "feed-while-still-alive" rat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What does it matter how they are fed? They are sold as food. It's like saying you should fry something instead of broil it. There is no difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I fry things I don't tend to do so while they are still alive with a working nervous system and the ability to suffer. That kind of makes it a bit different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No difference at all, and you're taking this out of context again. The question isn't whether or not the snake can eat something, it's how the snake is eating it. It's as idiotic as saying "You can't fry that! It's supposed to be baked!"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you even know what "out of context" means? Because you've taken things I've said out of context several times in your previous posts.
And...no. I don't care how a snake eats something, because a snake will usually always eat the same way it always eats. I'm talking about how a PERSON treats an animal. I am criticizing the actions of a person, not a snake, in regards to how they handle a situation in which they are presented with a humane option VS and inhumane one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I know full well what out of context means, as I watch you repeatedly take things out of context.
You must care a whole lot about how a snake eats, as you have been arguing with at least three people over it in the last three hours.
And before you use the "out of context" argument again in failure, this is perfectly within the scope of this argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You must not have as good a grasp as you think since you didn't notice the many times you took what I said out of context, though.
I never argued about what a snake does. I'm arguing about what people do. Again you're claiming I've said things I've never said, lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are arguing if a snake should eat a rat alive or dead, and the humanity of each. Your whole argument is "out of context."
So, your favorite phrases today are "Out of context" and "ad-hominem". Come on, give me some more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, not really, I'm pretty sure my original comment was related to the one I was replying to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Aww, you aren't going to repeat the same word you found in a thesaurus over and over again? I'm saddened now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kind of like how you did earlier?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that dyslexia must be pretty bad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Occasionally I like to highlight certain words to give them more impact, as long as I don't labour the point. This makes them dramatic, and will make them stand out more to people reading this. The use of careful emphasis helps to convey my point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good for you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like to think it's very relevant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well then you'd be wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or you would be ignorant
Either way, I can prove this entire situation ethically sound if you wish?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How am I ignorant for pointing out the fact that using bold type has nothing to do with the content of my post?
Sure, if you'd like to try and prove how it's ethical to put your pet at unnecessary risk while killing an animal unnecessarily painfully, even though as a domestic animal owner you are responsible for the welfare of both, be my guest and impress me.
But just an heads up, more ad-hominem attacks won't accomplish that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't seem to gasp the concept of subliminal messaging.
And if I must; According to situationist Utilitarian ethics, if the pleasure outweighs the pain then it's considered ethical, and is therefore ok. As it is myself and the snake that find this pleasurable, the rat does not get a say in matter. By the use of deontological ethics, then this is the more ethical path, as the rat's life has been preserved for
longer. As animal rights are a combination of Utilitarianism, Deontological Ethics, and virtue ethics, then 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
According to Teleological Ethics, it is the telos of the rat to sustain the snake, and therefore justifies it's death.
According to Plato the rat and the snake do not exist, and it's pointless to trouble ourselves with such trivial issues.
According to Nietzche it really doesnt matter.
This was not an attack, nor am I trying to impress you. I'm just showing an interest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You don't seem to gasp the concept of subliminal messaging."
What? How is this even relevant?
"As it is myself and the snake that find this pleasurable"
You're assuming that the snake gets more pleasure from eating a live rat than it would from eating a dead one. You don't know that this is the case, and can in fact be the exact opposite if the rat decides to fight back and severely injure the snake.
"This was not an attack,"
Is that why you called me ignorant?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
<= Prev | | Next =>