Jump to content
Pod Your Reef

Lionfish vs. Frog video


mascencerro

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So yeah that is pretty F@#ked up .... but on another note Check this tank out that does not involve killing ..... truely the coolest tank I have seen!!!!!

 

Link to comment

i dont think the frog was poisoness. (sp?) Lion fish have REALLY thin stomachs, and the frog kicking inside of his body was probly enough to rip him open on the inside. I acctually killed a lion fish at work one time, on accident ofcoarse. i had him trained to some to the top, and eat thawed krill from the surface. We had run out of San francisco krill, and all we had left was i THINK hikari. i didnt notice when i thawed it that because the krill from this company was larger, it had an exoskelliton on the tail, which ripped the lions stomach up, leading to his death. i felt so bad...

Link to comment
reefman225gal

I think there must be some validity to my insult on neanderthalman. when a guy wont accept an apology thats usually a good sign. ;)

Link to comment

Dead krill ripping open a lion's stomach? Yeah, right. They're built to eat pretty whole, kicking and clawing and the whole fight. It was probably just not thawed out, and killed the exothermic animal by freezing him from the inside out.

Link to comment
neanderthalman
neanderthalman, i did apologize no response!!

 

Thanks for the apology reefman. I was never actually insulted, I just like debate. :)

 

Dzhuo! Try reading my post again. I agree that this guy should go to jail, or otherwise be punished for what he did. He should probably also get therapy while he's there.

 

My entire argument is that his conviction (animal cruelty) does not match his crime (not sure what to call it). Dshnarw may have nailed it with "contributing to the deliquency of a minor", but I'm not sure exactly how that law should be applied. This guy c probably be punished in precisely the same manner as those who allow minors to see R-rated films or buy adult magazines. It's the closest I can come up with, since he allowed minors to view something so graphically violent that they should never witness. In truth, he should probably get as high a punishment as they can give for this, even though he is not a repeat offender, because it was not a printed media, but a live performance right in front of them. It would be the difference between allowing them to buy a playboy and letting them into a swinger's club.

 

I never meant to make the point that a 15 year old boy should be able to view such a feeding, but simply to counter the suggestive nature of your post that they were young children. A statement of "young children" implies a child much younger than a 15 year old teenager. I wanted to clear up that we weren't talking about kindergarten kids, but kids partway through high school. Still wrong, but not quite so.

 

You also cannot punish someone for what you think they might do next. That's disgusting. I think he might rob a bank tomorrow, so we should charge him with bank robbery today, too. It doesn't make sense, does it. This isn't "minority report". We have no way to know what he would do next, nor can we punish him for things he has not yet done. It's ludicrous to think that we can or should.

 

It doesn't need to be an attack specifically AT live feedings, but the simple fact that a man was charged with animal cruelty for live feeding one animal to another allows it to be used in such a future attack. Believe me, in this nanny-state, such an attack on live feedings is most assuredly coming. This is the danger of precedent. This is why judges have to consider what precedent they might be setting when they make such a decision, and why the specific charges have to match the crime. The precedent can be used in situations that lack the context of this case, because the charge does not fit the crime. The crime was not for live feedings, it was for letting teens watch for entertainment.

Link to comment
dasstheboss
puppies are not food.

 

Why not?

Its not like they are any different from other animals. if you say puppies are not food, you are saying live food is a nono

Link to comment

rats are bad, puppies are good, spiders are bad, birds are good, bla bla bla. why? because "i said so."

 

it's not even close to logical. some people might argue that dogs were meant as pets not food, i say BS. where the hell did dogs come from? you think God put all animals on Earth and then decided to give humans a selection of "pet" species? obviously not. we made dogs and cats domestic. we invented the term domestic. so the food chain still applies. and in a snake's case, small furry cuddlies are fair game. period. "cuddliness" was never a survival strategy in nature. and btw NATURE dictates what is and isn't food. not laws.

 

obviously "live food" is a grey area, so there's no point in saying "where do you draw the line?" are dogs and brine shrimp on the same level? no. are rats and dogs on teh same level? depends who you ask... starts gettin a lil muddled doesnt it?

 

The man went to jail and Im good with that for the context in which he fed the puppy. in front of a bunch of 15 year olds for fun? yeah that is sick.

 

tee hee, i laughed a little at the death by krill. callaro, dont worry about it, your feeding slightly larger krill probably had nothin to do with it. if they can swallow wrasses, other lions and live shrimp among many others whole, then i doubt thawed krill would put up much more of a fight.

Link to comment
neanderthalman

Spiders are bad? no way. They reduce the population of potentially disease carrying insects. They sound like a very beneficial creature, and your idea of "good" and "bad" sounds like a personal opinion, not exactly an overwhelming truth.

 

Regardless of whether a creature has specific benefit to humanity, if an action is cruel to one creature, then it is also cruel to all creatures (if such action has a direct analogue). I'm pretty sure I've already covered why.

 

Your own personal opinion of what animals are good and what animals are bad has absolutely no bearing on whether an action is cruel. FWIW, animals, by their very nature, can be neither good nor bad.

 

I'm a little uncertain that this guy should have gone to jail. To be honest, he probably should have, but I think there is a very important question to be asked.

 

Would he have fed a puppy to the snake if there weren't 15 year olds watching?

 

If he normally fed puppies to the snake, then I don't really see the problem with allowing a teenager to witness one of these regular live feedings. If he normally did not feed puppies to the snake, and normally either fed "normal" live foods or f/t foods, then he must have fed the live puppy simply for the kids to watch, and that is pretty sick.

 

It's not the action itself that I find disgusting, but the mentality and intent behind it that may have been malicious.

 

Now, was this man jailed because he fed a puppy to a snake, was he jailed for allowing 15 year olds watch a regular live feeding, or was he jailed for feeding a puppy to a snake because the kids wanted to see it?

 

If this situation was one of the first two possibilities, then I don't support jail time. If it was well proven that this feeding was different or performed purely for entertainment, then yes, I think jail time would be appropriate.

 

Do we know WHY exactly he was jailed? unfortunately, no, we don't.

Link to comment

lets keep the thread going!!!

 

No animal is bad or good. Some animals were created for diffrent purposes. Dolphins are not food, they are intelligent mammals which have a purpose and pecking order provided by nature. Puppies are the same in that sense. nature has made the distinction which is common sense and fundemental. They are "mans best friend" because of close emotional ties. Dont overthink this too much. Our reasoning has a way of leading us astray at times. The distinction is elemental, historical, established, and proper. Wilderbeasts in Africa may feel emotions as well (like fear) but nature has selected or allows for them to be food for crocs and others. Its the way we found it. We dont reason that all animals are food for something else. Thats dumb and defies common sense. We have a value system in place.

Link to comment

lol sorry neanderthalman, i think i stated myself wrongly in my first post. that is not my personal opinion of those particular animals. I actually like spiders for the same reasons you do. plus i think they are just really cool (woot, tarantulas).

 

mrabolli... do you seriously believe that?

"Some animals were created for diffrent purposes. Dolphins are not food, they are intelligent mammals which have a purpose and pecking order provided by nature" yeah, tell that to the sharks and whales who hunt them. not to mention the countless parasites that live off of pretty much anbything. oh, and some people eat dolphin too (something i could never do).

 

"Puppies are the same in that sense. nature has made the distinction which is common sense and fundemental. They are "mans best friend" because of close emotional ties" ha. good one. nature was created in a kill or be killed setting. the only reason dogs became close to us was because we fed them and they liked that. eventually we domesticated them and now we basically own them. same deal with small cats. it is by no means "the way we found it." it's more like the way we MADE it. "nature" is dying off and being replaced with something artificial.

 

"We dont reason that all animals are food for something else. Thats dumb and defies common sense. We have a value system in place." name me one animal... no, let's broaden it, name me any ORGANISM that wouldnt be preyed upon in its natural setting other than humans. if there was an animal that didnt have population control they would quickly overpopulate the world and take it over... kind of like what's happening now.

Link to comment
lol sorry neanderthalman, i think i stated myself wrongly in my first post. that is not my personal opinion of those particular animals. I actually like spiders for the same reasons you do. plus i think they are just really cool (woot, tarantulas).

 

mrabolli... do you seriously believe that?

"Some animals were created for diffrent purposes. Dolphins are not food, they are intelligent mammals which have a purpose and pecking order provided by nature" yeah, tell that to the sharks and whales who hunt them. not to mention the countless parasites that live off of pretty much anbything. oh, and some people eat dolphin too (something i could never do).

 

"Puppies are the same in that sense. nature has made the distinction which is common sense and fundemental. They are "mans best friend" because of close emotional ties" ha. good one. nature was created in a kill or be killed setting. the only reason dogs became close to us was because we fed them and they liked that. eventually we domesticated them and now we basically own them. same deal with small cats. it is by no means "the way we found it." it's more like the way we MADE it. "nature" is dying off and being replaced with something artificial.

 

"We dont reason that all animals are food for something else. Thats dumb and defies common sense. We have a value system in place." name me one animal... no, let's broaden it, name me any ORGANISM that wouldnt be preyed upon in its natural setting other than humans. if there was an animal that didnt have population control they would quickly overpopulate the world and take it over... kind of like what's happening now.

 

I disagree.

Link to comment
neanderthalman

care to bring some evidence to the table mrabolli?

 

I'm not interested in the fact that you disagree, but I am extremely interested to know why you disagree.

Link to comment
care to bring some evidence to the table mrabolli?

 

I'm not interested in the fact that you disagree, but I am extremely interested to know why you disagree.

 

not going to spend the time. Sorry.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
Spiders are bad? no way. They reduce the population of potentially disease carrying insects. They sound like a very beneficial creature, and your idea of "good" and "bad" sounds like a personal opinion, not exactly an overwhelming truth.

 

Regardless of whether a creature has specific benefit to humanity, if an action is cruel to one creature, then it is also cruel to all creatures (if such action has a direct analogue). I'm pretty sure I've already covered why.

 

Your own personal opinion of what animals are good and what animals are bad has absolutely no bearing on whether an action is cruel. FWIW, animals, by their very nature, can be neither good nor bad.

 

I'm a little uncertain that this guy should have gone to jail. To be honest, he probably should have, but I think there is a very important question to be asked.

 

Would he have fed a puppy to the snake if there weren't 15 year olds watching?

 

If he normally fed puppies to the snake, then I don't really see the problem with allowing a teenager to witness one of these regular live feedings. If he normally did not feed puppies to the snake, and normally either fed "normal" live foods or f/t foods, then he must have fed the live puppy simply for the kids to watch, and that is pretty sick.

 

It's not the action itself that I find disgusting, but the mentality and intent behind it that may have been malicious.

 

Now, was this man jailed because he fed a puppy to a snake, was he jailed for allowing 15 year olds watch a regular live feeding, or was he jailed for feeding a puppy to a snake because the kids wanted to see it?

 

If this situation was one of the first two possibilities, then I don't support jail time. If it was well proven that this feeding was different or performed purely for entertainment, then yes, I think jail time would be appropriate.

 

Do we know WHY exactly he was jailed? unfortunately, no, we don't.

 

 

There is definitely nothing neanderthal about your arguments. ;)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recommended Discussions


×
×
  • Create New...