dude those irakies or whatever the fuck they are, are so fucked up in the head. this is just fucking horrible. I wish i could smak them around like that.

Maybe you should smack the euros/americans paying them for the fur instead huh?

they're chinese

oi change the post title ratbag!

is there a reason to skin them alive?

surely killing them would be easier

but yeah very sick

older than my fur coat

This just in: killing things is shocking and disturbing.

In other news: fire burns.

Wind blows.

coby my man what this thing with all the numbers....
itsa itsa itsa itsa
:D
best movie evar!

Deffo, watched it the other day actually, downloaded a HD version or something like that. Can't believe how good the special effects were for the time.

multipass

autowash ='[

They were ok. But when she breaks out of the regeneration chamber thingy, you can see the glass is pre-cut, and it's even a different camera angle from when you see her hitting through the glass. That always annoyed me :P

yea, one of my favourite movies ever, and strangely enough one of my mums favourite movies ever too, even though she is isnt really into sci-fi ish stuff. Its just an excellent movie, wish they made more like that!

I was just thinking of watching that movie again, i try and see it twice a year, numbah wan movie on me list

chickawn!

"Mmm, guuud chikahn!"

haha that is one of the funniest things ive seen this week [+]

eugh

for those who didnt know.... life is pretty tough sometimes.

oh... and peta and whatever those human/animal rights organizations should just kill themselfes... mostly they just preach about crap.

are u fucking retard? did u even watch that shit? they skinned them alive ffs.
i guess u just wanna sound cool or what ever...

lol. yes i did watch it and im not trying to sound cool :D:D:D:D:D but what can u do about it ... nothing. ofc its pretty sick what they do but no can do about it :<

My thought's are, that yes things like in the video are horrible. But I dont understand how so much money and donations can be going into animal cruelty, when there is just as horrible things happening to children and people around the world.

Life for people on this world certainly isn't 'fixed' yet. There are millions of children suffering and going through huge amounts of pain. How can people support and fund things like PETA knowing that identical things are happening to children? There are charities that provide the same kind of help PETA does, but to actual humans.

If the world ever gets to a state where cruelty and suffering to people is stopped, then we can start worrying about stopping cruelty to animals. But at the moment, it should be a simple principle of priorities.

well, that will never happen.

I agree. But in that case, there should never be all this PETA shit, because as long as there are children suffering, they should be getting all the support we can give, not animals.

I completely agree.

Childrens are our fault of messing up, what have animals ever done to us?

I dont understand your comment.

The children getting abused havent done anything to us either.

There are people harming them, and there are people harming animals.

it's not sick. it's what we do. we're humans -- we're at the top of the food chain. you spoiled little brats wouldn't BE here if it weren't for people doing the things they need to survive, which includes killing animals or else taking advantage of them and their properties, sometimes in more gruesome ways than others.

what's sick is you and your attitude toward things and what that's going to do to our society (and what it is doing to our society). just because we're at a point where we don't HAVE to go out and do things ourselves doesn't mean that those things aren't useful, and when we get complacent as we have, things are going to go to shit.

I'll tell you what got us where we are: hard work and great, thinking men. morality is not inherent; it has evolved, just as we have, as a result of countless instances of trial and error through past tribulations and successes, and just because you are so far moved from what is real about humanity doesn't mean that you are justified in condemning it. civilization is civilization because we've taken the things that the world has given us and we've learned how to make tools of it; civilization isn't inherent, and cruelty isn't going to go away just because you sit at home watching television programs and playing video games -- the evolution of society has been uneven, and it proceeds in a sawtooth fashion [we have periods of war and periods of enlightenmnt, or periods of peace and periods of reliance upon fath and dogmata].

some parts of the world still rely upon archaic technology to thrive, and that's what's really sad. we're sitting in our comfortable homes, taking in all the latest news about paris hilton's conviction, and these people are doing what they can to make money under governments that install themselves as dictatorships under the guise of economic progress because we do what those dictatorships do to their citizenry, only we do it to on a national level, since the part of evolution that is required for us to be truly altruistic in nature is far removed from anything humanity has accomplished to this point.

I don't know whether we will ever remove ourselves entirely from the brutality of nature, and I'm not sure we either need nor want to do so (or if it makes sense to do so in economic principle), but your whining is doing the exact opposite of what is necessary for the pale blue dot to evolve into something greater.

youre right, ... BUT they torture them for nothing :P i think the main topic is that they just torture those animals... like stands on their throat and stomping their heads... theres nothing wrong what they do but that HOW they do is pretty gay :)

There is plenty wrong with what they do.

Do we even need fur coats? I am not a vegan and I do eat red meat, but I put forward the idea that as the most evolved species on this planet we have a duty in a manner becoming of that evolution. Which is respect for what sustains as, and this extends to our treatment of the planet and then to the treatment of animals which as my anonymous friend said in other words sustain us.

Mindless slaughter of animals is an action I would of thought we had left behind, but apparently not.

You're point that one person alone can not make a difference is one of the most sickening thoughts I find prevalent today. No enlightened movement ever just came to be, it always began with one person, or a small group of people. More so than ever today, we are placed in a position of inaction because no one thinks they can make a difference without the sanction of government.

I'm not attacking you, rather I am pointing out that you should never think that something is impossible based upon the scale of action needed to create change.

If there is hope, wrote Wilson, it lies in the Proles.

with reference to your part about evolution, IT SAL LINHOW YOUL OOKA TIT. personally, i feel that we humans as a species will not evolve any further and we will inevitably destroy ourselves which could then trigger a new era where another species is on top. i think we were meant to destroy ourselves. by killing animals recklessly and depleting the earth's resources, we are only bringing ourselves closer to extinction imo... unless, we find a way to thrive on a new planet. i don't believe in destiny when it comes to individual lives but i do think that we as a species have been given a rough time frame to be on this planet and we will not live on for much longer than that. sounds stupid i know but that's just my theory.

only read 2 paragraphs
im not some vegan fighter, i agree with testings on animals & killing them for food etc (burgers 4tw babeh). the thing i find wrong with it is the fact that theyre skinning it while its still alive, there is such a thing as a tasteful death. put it out its misery before you do that shit

Its not the point that humans are brutal in nature or whatever. Also its kinda obviouse we kill animals for our own benefit wheter thats for clothing or food, but what those guys did was just plain silly and utterly brutal.

There is no reason at all to skin an animal while its still alive and kicking around like mad because of the pain. It actually makes you skin less fast because of that.

I know we need food and other stuff, but keep things civilized imo. There is no need to torture animals or human beings for that matter. Just make it quick and painless. Everything else is not needed.

well im guessing the reason is that they dont want holes (knife wounds) in the fur which would explain starting at the feet. drugs to kill them cost money too

yeah but a nice swing to the head with a metal bat or pole or something would be just as effective and not damage any of the fur...although it's brutal, it's much faster and less painful for the animal than skinning it alive

a metal bar wouldnt cut an animal?

No.. It's Classified as "Blunt Weapon" which delivers "Blunt Damage" .. "Slashing Weapons" deliver "Slashing Damage" that may result in "Bleeding" or "Deep Wound" Conditions .. !

It's True .. My RPG Handbook says that!

Great post, I agree with all of it, but as mentioned by the replies above, you are completely missing the point.

Even if you agree with killing animals for fur, what is happening here not right.

it doesn't miss the point. it explains exactly WHY these people do what you think is 'disgusting,' and it shows that they DON'T necessarily have the same convictions that you do.

the reason we value humans is because of the complexity of the organism and its capacity to be happy. insects and arachnids don't have the capacity to be happy. frogs and fish don't have the capacity to be happy. rodents and small marsupials don't have the capacity to be happy. I'm not sure that medium or larged sized mammals do, either. it's just that they're so obvious because of their size that it feels like they're more 'human,' but they're not, and different cultures don't have the same stigmas that we do, whether it's a good thing or it isn't, and I think I've made a good attempt at understanding why this is the case.

You'de be suprised how much emotion any animal can show. Its very naive to think that humans are the only animals on this planet to have such characteristics.

I don't believe humans are so much different from all the other animals. Animals can have all the emotions humans can have (anger, happiness, stress, fear, careness, etc). I don't find humans to be superior over other animals. Heck, I believe even plants and trees have some basic form of emotion or feelings. That also has been tested in labratory's I believe.

Yes. There was some crazy guy who hooked plants up to electro graphs and then sang to them.

Plants don't have emotions, and animals certainly can't show the wide range of emotions attributed to humans. My dog gets angry whenever little people shout at it. My dog acts conceited whenever I tell her to lie down. My dog does not contemplate its own existence.

Animals simply react to surroundings, they do not process external stimuli in the same way a human does. When someone punches me in the face, I ask myself "Why did they punch me in the face?". If I punch my dog in the face, it reacts by either biting me or retreating with its head down: it does this because it does not want to be hit again. My dog reacts, in the most basic sense, to its environment, but it does not ask why, it does not wonder why it could not catch the cat, it does not wonder why its paw hurts. It accepts the situation and tries and adapt.

I doubt your first reaction to whether someone punches you in the face is asking yourself why he did that. Your first reaction would either be punching back because you got angry or you walk/run away because of fear. Only after the "danger" so to say is gone you start thinking about why he punched you in the face or not.

So basically your first reaction is the one that your instinct told you to do, after that your conscious comes into play.

I believe every living being has some sort of conscious. I've seen a documentairy about intelligence with other mammals. Like dolphins, they are highly intelligent and are even able to learn a language (their trainers communicated by gestures). And I don't mean gestures like roll over or flipper around a bit, but more sophisticated sentences. Because of this gesture language they have been able to learn alot about how dolphins think and how they solve problems. And to solve difficult problems you need quite some brainpower like humans.

At the coast of brazile for example, wild dolphins help each year the local fisherman to catch fish together. The dolphins horde up the fish towards the fisherman and then one of the dolphins gives a signal to the fisherman when to throw out their nets. Both fisherman and dolphin benefit from this and its being passed on from generation to generation.

Just because animals don't have a sophisticated language to communicate or think in, doesn't mean they cannnot think for themselfs or know emotions like we do. They prolly aren't the exact same thing as our emotions, but they are deffiniatly there.

My first reaction may not be to ask why, I may do that after the fact, but I still do it, my nature is to ask why, I am a thinking animal. A dog or cat, or shark or lion, does not feel guilt when it kills you, it does not care that you have a family or that you are human, it does not comprehend your worth beyond a meal or your role as provider. Animals do not have a conscience.

You talked about animals in general, but now you use what is widely regarded as one of the most intelligent animals as your example? Firstly, it is obvious that a dolphin feels more than an ant; what is not obvious is to what extent it feels. It may be able to learn complex commands and interaction patterns, but can it love? Can it contemplate its own existence? If the oceans dry up will it ask why? I do not know the answer to these questions with regards to dolphins, but in so far as other animals are concerned, I believe the answers to be more than obvious, to even the most dwindling intellect.

Chimpanzees are another case where I do not claim to know, and there are probably others; this, however, was not your point: you claimed that all animals feel, that all animals have a conscience, not just the intelligent ones - This is what I dispute.

Well this will turn in quite the philisophical debate offcourse, because humanity has been asking the "why" questions for a couple of thousand years now.

If you break down what human emotions actually just are its nothing more then chemical and electrical processes in the brain. Your brain gets stimulated from external sources around you and process that in your brain to react to. Thats how your brain works, thats how my brain works, thats how a brain of every animal works.

Why do we love people? Why do you fall in love with that particulair girl? Yes, because you feel attracted to her. If you look at love from an evolution perspective, you fall in love with someone because you like to reproduce with it (so to say ^^). Survival of the species.

All animals try to show off as much as possible to the other sex. Either by looking beautifull, being dominant or impress in any other form which is normal for the species. This impressing the other sex generates attracting with the other party. This feeling of being attracted to the other is also the thing that we call love.

You can't compare all human emotions exactly one on one, but the emotions are there in some form. Its like a tiger or lion licking other members of the group. Why? Prolly because they care for the other, it makes them feel good and being part of the group. They might not think about their feelings as conscious as we do, but the feelings are there nevertheless.

I believe all animals have feelings and thus emotions. If you would look more closely to animals and how they react (discovery channel, national geographic or animal planet), you'd see how much emotions animals can display towards eachother. You need to think like an animal to really notice their emotions, stop thinking like a human :P

Recent research on how dolphins communicate shows it to be about 20 times more complex than how we communicate :o

It does miss the point, and you are also completely missing it too!

I also agree (to an extent) with the things you are saying.

The point here is nothing to do with the value of life. I am not a vegetarian, I agree with killing animals for food. But NOONE should agree with the complete unneccessary, pointless torchoring of ANY living creature that can feel! Even if you agree fully to the killing of animals for fur.

Since when have fur been fucking usefull? it doesnt serve any purpose at all except for fasion, you have synthetic materials to do that. What fucking excuse do you have for skinning a living being, when its alive and awake at that fact?

Prick.

hi kdawg

i didnt bother to read the rest of what you said after like 2 sentences

you really dont fucking believe that these people skinning animals alive to sell fur to some rich bitch in hollywood somehow even remotely equates to "survival" your fucking stupid

20 minutes of hell, and an eternity of bliss.

i once ate a chicken but someone had already killed it before so it wasn't that disgusting when u think about it

hi retard

http://www.akacrasher.com/stuff/matrix-retard.jpg

fuck you emo

you are cool.

as a cucumber

Though it had probably been pumped with antibiotics and had such deformed legs it couldnt move the extra 20cm it had been given at the factory...

Disgusting indeed :(

But I wouldn't trust PETA any farther than I could throw them (the big fat ones at least).

Nice.

Shame Ogrish isn't around anymore, though.

Looks like a third world country. And cameras aren't cheap to come by, yet there is a dood standing there filming it in close proximity to the animal being skinned alive. I bet the guy behind the camera works for PETA.

The thing is this shit is happening all over the world on a daily basis. For example Canadians clubbing helpless seals, the Japanese culling huge herds of dolphins, Icelanders killing whales, India and their treatment of bears, the Welsh anally probing sheep. I could go on forever.

So, why waste your time worrying about it? There isn't much you can do about it anyway?

where was the worry? i just said it was sick

Definition : Worry

To feel uneasy or concerned about something; be troubled.
To cause to feel anxious, distressed, or troubled.
To bother or annoy, as with petty complaints.

lol0rz

what happened to the bears in India?

Making them dance the robot when they obviously want to samba.

maybe they like dancing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-ByFv5pGdA

It was all over the western news the other week where some people in india dressed the bears in female clothes and ridiculed them etc. I believe they mistreated them pretty badly as well.

sigh that's just shitty :/

Really?

Bit of a coincidence, I never seen it. But I presumed it was well known because I've seen it on television quite a few times in the past.

No doubt there are dozens of videos available on the net if he really wanted to see what was happening.

Well whether I support PETA or not is another story. Sometimes they're a bit over the top TBH.

But I didn't watch the video to the end, but I assumed they were going suggest not buying fur because some of the fur comes from live skinnings like in the video.

Which means absolutely nothing to me. I already was not going to buy any fur because it requires killing animals to get it and we have better alternatives. Same with leather but it's a bit harder to avoid at times.

Hence why I don't like PETA, making a big deal about something, causing me to lose my appetite over fur I was never going to use.

As far as I am concerned and any vegetarian can tell you. It's almost pointless to try and convince people to do ______ if they perceive it as having to give something they like up. I mean after Al Gore's Global Warming documentary sure sales of Compact Florescent Light bulbs went way up. That choice takes no sacrifice, they save money and they reduce pollution. Anyone smart has made the switch. But has 90% of my population done much beyond that?

Still driving 2000kg+ cars, with 6 or 8 cylinders, still watching two TV's, while 3/4s of the lights in the house are on, and the A/C unit is keeping it 18C inside the house when 24 would still be comfortable and use far less energy. Still eating meat and food transported 1000's of km before it reaches their plate. Generally the energy used in getting the food on someones plate is 15-20 times higher than the actual energy in from calories in the food.

The key problem with getting everyone on an ecological, environmentally friendly path really starts with the people's perceptions. When one person thinks the planet is too big for their actions to affect it, alone they almost are right, but when you have millions of people thinking the same, they together are completely wrong.

The fact is we can and do great harm to the planet and it's literally our only home. Humans did not create nature so we do not have a right to destroy it. Even if the worst consequences of people's actions (and inactions) do not take shape during their lifetimes. (ie: Global Warming) Is there not a moral responsibility to protect all we really have for our children and their children?

Humans are not separate from their environment, that's the fundamental misunderstanding behind most of the pollution, deforestation, transportation problems, Coal and fossil fuel energy, poor lifestyle choices, animal mistreatment and nuclear weapon problems we face. Now with the capability to do massive damage to the environment comes major responsibility to minimize our impact on it.

[/end enviro-rant]

Humans = mold
Earth = sandwich

The sandwich is being consumed and inevitably it will be gone forever.

Mold doesn't come from the sandwich though?

Molds reproduce through small spores.[2] Mold spores can be asexual (the products of mitosis) or sexual (the products of meiosis), and many species can produce both types. They may contain a single nucleus or many. Some can remain airborne indefinitely, and many are able to survive extremes of temperature and pressure.

So I guess if humans float around in outer space looking for planets to land on and digest then yes!

Wiki Mold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

sponsor me a flight and I will personally hit them VERY hard till I crush their fucking skull with the hardest thing I can find.
Fucking sick people, they should die.

I hope the blinding irony of that post hasn't escaped you.

British fox-hunts are way worse.

its banned

was under the impression fox hunting with hounds was band, not fox hunting in general?

people only hunt them with hounds?
some people have been using other things since the ban but it just means theyre chasing a fox and not killing it

eh?

so what's band? hunting with dogs or hunting altogeher?

hunting with intent to kill afaik

I think the 'fun factor' has been banned, you know dressing up like fags, riding on horse back with an unnecessarily large pack of hounds.

So they now drive around in their 4x4s shooting them. Supposedly it's more humane, but seeing as most shots don't kill the animal instantly it's been argued that it's actually far worse than being killed by hounds. Because when a pack of hounds get hold of a fox they tear it up in pieces within seconds.

britain?

I did not watch the video itself, but animal cruelty happens so that you can get hamburgers, chicken or steak at the shop. Do not for one second think that most meat you get on the plate comes from a happy cow at some farm. It comes from meat factories where they stand in a little box (where they cant move of course) for all their lives. Meanwhile they are constantly fed antibiotics so that they will be kept alive. They actually tried to genetically manipulate pigs once so that they would have no legs, to save room. I'm not a vegan, or even a vegetarian, but plz ppl, do not pretend like things are better where you live, because they are not. Animals are tortured like this so that you can get the meat or fur.
You CAN help stopping it though. Just join some animal rights organisation, or stop eating meat :).

you know.. the real cruel one is the guy who created us. it's shitty that we have to depend on other living things for food, be it animal or plant. should have just given every single creature on this planet something like photosynthesis.

but that'd be cruel to photons :(

they dont FEEL afaik, so at least it would be less cruel :)

tell that to a photon

Photons be freeeeeee!

fucking hell rofl :P

I thought the exact same thing as I read your post :P Ever read/seen any of Neil deGrasse Tyson?

no

That's a great plan mate. I'll be sure to try it next winter. :o

If we indeed have a creator, then I agree with you. He would be a very cruel being.

the creator could've just created the initial energy in the universe, and everything took a step after that. Allahu 'Akbar.

He would still be responsible, it would be his creation.

by that logic, it'd be the mother's fault for whatever her children does?

God is all knowing. So when he creates the "world" everything is part of his plan.

Humanity has the choice and means to change things for the better, but doesn't. The conditions/rules/whatever are set, the rest is up to us. If you want change, stop blaming start acting.

Not if God is all knowing. Even if his knowledge is non causal he still knows what you're going to do before you do it.

god is not all knowing. god is not even a thing. god is a very broad term with lots of different definitions by lots of different people.

In case you have not figured this out yet, people came up with this god thing several thousand years ago.

Actually our planet came from dust gases and debris that settled and clumped into a planet during beginning of the solar system.

I agree that's not as cool as "In the beginning God created..."

But science actually tries to be a bit more closer to the facts. Instead of the easiest, simplest and most insulting explanation possible to origin of galaxies, stars, planets and life.

To clarify, I do not believe in god :). I'm a sort of atheist, so science seem like the most logical way to find out the secrets of the universe to me at the moment :)

I agree with that idea totally. I have long thought that how someone is raised determines how they act as an adult.

Which is why I have a very low opinion of people who have children when the situations surrounding their upbringing are some what volatile.

Of course it is possible for people to in act change in their own life regardless of upbringing (say someone voting liberal after being raised by authoritarian parents) Or for people raised in broken homes to see the value of family (which is my opinion and my history)

But for the most part if you raise children in ignorance they will live in ignorance. And this is a most dangerous precedent.

Here's a more dangerous one: Nature plays a bigger role than nurture; child-iq predicts success in life better than any other measure (parents income, parents education level, books avail, etc). This is less obvious because all the things in the parenthesis correlate positively with iq.

How do you define success in life?

If you live happy, are content with what you have, help others and try not to harm. How is this not a total success, and this is all basic stuff which doesn't require tons of intelligence.

It was a fact; the fact was based upon a given definition of success. now i trust you to be able to imagine what lies in that definition.

aside from totally sidestepping my point, you're right in questioning the importance of success as norm-ally seen..

in fact, for reasons such as that they may be more demanding of themselves, i would not think that people with high iq's are especially happy although they are generally more successful.

oh, you mean, like this guy?

according to his calculations, Sidis "easily had an IQ between 250 and 300"

Sidis died, unemployed and poor,[17] of a cerebral hemorrhage in Boston at the age of 46

:)

I've actually read two of his books and some articles.. He lived most his life ascetically and didn't care for fame, fortune or success.

An exception does not negate a tendency.

But regardless of that; the extreme ends of intelligence often are not understood at all in their life - only long after. And he was successful in the sense of completing works of intellectual value.

How many births do you think are planned?

Why do you think the population of every single country in the world has increased?

World population :

1900 - 1 billion
Now - 6.6 billion

Why is sex so damn fucking good?

There is a reason for that. And very few people can control those feelings. The body's will to reproduce is so powerful people are fucking constantly. As I'm typing this there have probably been a thousand births and conceptions.

It's not their fault, not so long ago we used to be swinging in trees and life back then was very hectic and dangerous. So we had to fuck like crazy else we wouldn't of survived. Unfortunately the need to perpetuate the human species still exists within us all. As you can see from population records.

Condoms?

1. God doesn't exist.
2. Plants are about as alive as fire, and humans can survive on plants (we're not carnivores).

1. Nice of you to clear that up. Thanks.
2. We're not herbivores, either.

1. Welcome.
2. What's your point?

1. I wonder what qualifies you to say this.
2. You implied that we should follow a vegetarian diet.

1. Concept is ridiculous.
2. No I didn't, besides the vegetarian diet is fine anyway so who cares.
3. Let's stop replying with number points, that was my fault I'm sorry.

You said "humans can survive on plants", I assumed that meant you were advocating a vegetarian diet, sorry if I was wrong.

God isn't a concept to which you can deny existence. You can deny belief, but to deny existence implies you have some form of proof, which I doubt you do. The burden of proof is on the believer, just as it is on the scientist to prove his theory of gravity or that his new medicine works - But, if you ask of them proof, then you must also grant them the courtesy of not denying their belief without any proof yourself.

How about a gaping lack of proof as a good reason to deny existence?

In other words to not believe in flying spaghetti monsters until they've been proven to exist.

Not believing in something is different to categorically claiming it doesn't exist. When people say "God does not exist", they're not claiming to have objective proof; what they mean to say is "I do not believe that God exists", which is different. It's semantic, but it avoids confusion, and it also makes you sound like less of a troll.

I am touched by his noodly appendage.

1. never said God did exist.
2. plants are more 'alive' than fire.

1. "the guy who created us" sounds like god to me.
2. How? They both spread wherever they can based on circumstance not choice, don't see how plants could be sentient, there's absolutely no evidence to support it.

the guy who created us could be anyone.. not what we consider god.. it could even be a group of alien scientists but thats besides the point lol.. what i meant was.. if there was someone or something which was responsible for us being here and the way our bodies work, maybe something could have been done to help us replenish energy on our own. i was speaking hypothetically.

i say plants are more alive than fire because they are made up of several parts, most of which have a function similar to that of organs found in other living things like a reproductive system. they also grow over a period of time and have regenerative capabilities to a certain extent. plants can also have limited movement of their own i.e not due to external forces. fire spreading is usually because of wind or some flammable medium. sunflowers follow the sun over the course of the day. other flowers open up and close. finally, there are carnivorous plants which trap insects and eat them. that's enough to convince me they're alive.

Good points, although the carnivorous pants have sensors for when a fly lands on them, so you couldn't really call that intelligence, still see no evidence of sentient thought.

pants... I hope this goes out unedited olol

I did actually laugh, no joke, no fake, no shit. Teck ehhhh shhhit!

FUCK

... Is what Lars said to James a number of times in one setting.

So you mean that your measurement of something being alive is that it has intelligence?

Alive in the context of this discussion meaning able to suffer. What's the big deal about eating plants if they aren't sentient? I can understand not eating animals because they're clearly sentient... but plants just makes no sense. That is what I meant.

well there are single cell / microscopic organisms that do not possess a brain to process thoughts. yet they reproduce, move and even kill us. i wouldn't say having intelligence is required to be called a 'living thing' but rather, being able to think is a 'special ability' we possess as a species and it is this combined with a few other things that makes us the dominant species on the planet.

hope i'm being clear enough. just woke up :)

Its beyond me how you can say that plants aren't more alive then fire.

Fire is no lifeform. Its a chemical reaction between a fuel source and oxigen. Plant life has just like any other life form a cycle of existence and has some very basic way of seeing its surroundings.

I remember they experimented with plants in a labaratory. They hooked a bunch of plants on a instrument that could read out electrical current going through the plant. Pretty similair to how we measure brain activity through the skull.
They then let a man physically abuse one of the plants really severe. They saw on their meters that whenever the man came back in the room after he abused the first plant before, the meters would register a big chance in the electrical signals that the other plant produced. Where it wouldn't show those differences when some other person entered the room, only when the abuser entered they saw these changes.

This pretty much proved to me that plants have a very basic way of "feeling" so to say.

Sources? Sounds like bullshit to me made up by someone (not necessarily you) to make a point.

Ok, I searched around a bit on the internet. Some guy Backster did found out something about that, altho I don't agree with everything he found out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)

Some other interesting articles who are scientific and do show that plants are more alive the fire ;) :

The "sixth sense" of plants

Stress levels of plants when being touched

The Electrical Patterns of Life

The Effect of Music on Plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)

"Plants can sense light (phototropism, photomorphogenesis, photoperiodism) and gravity (gravitropism) and some can respond to touch (thigmotropism, thigmonasty) (Salisbury and Ross, 1985). As far as botanists have determined, plants do not have feelings, do not grow better when exposed to certain types of music, and cannot communicate with humans as claimed in the bestselling book "The Secret Life of Plants." Those claims have been debunked by real botanists (Hershey, 1995)."

http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol327/Lecture/plant-way.htm pretty interesting :p

Interesting indeed.

"For many years, I have always said that "plants are smarter than you think." Hopefully, our discussion of the plant way of life has led you to agree. Although my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, there have been recent discussions about the intelligence of plants. Historically, plants have not been considered to be "intelligent" because this concept has been associated with movement. Thus, animals are smart, plants are not. But, if you agree with Anthony Trewavas (2002) who first argued in Nature that if "intelligence is defined as adaptively variable behaviour during the life of the individual, then, in plants, behavioural plasticity is where intelligence should be apparent." The examples cited in this document and lots of others from Trewavas, convince me that Trewavas is correct - plants are intelligent. For more reading, Trewavas has expanded his Nature article into a longer review which is excellent and available on-line. David Hershey agrees, and has also addressed this issue in an eloquent essay, "Plants are indeed, intelligent," that was submitted to the American Biology Teacher. Both of these articles contain lots of examples what plants are so "cool." "

Like I said I don't believe everything they wrote down there. But if plants can respond to touch it means they are feeling the touch, otherwise you can't respond to it ;).

Altho I guess they mean feelings like fear, anger, love, etc. And I agree, doubt they can have feelings like that. It wouldn't serve any evolutionairy purpose to have such feelings as a plant. However now I think of it, some plants close their flowers when bad weather is comming (long before its actually there). So they must sense the weather is comming and trigger something that makes them close their flowers for protective purposes. Could see that as basic fear maybe :P.

I see absolutely no evidence to support any of this, the only type of shit I see is stuff like "they react to sound"... SHOCKER! Plants respond to light also and nobody bats an eye lid, why is reacting to another form of energy anything special? As for touch... mousetraps respond to touch for fucks sake, it means nothing as far as I'm concerned, 'til I see some actual evidence and not just wild theories that make no sense I'm going to continue enjoying potatoes.

Reacting to something means it's alive. If it wasn't alive it didn't need to react because it wouldn't matter to it's survival (it doesn't need to survive because it's not alive in the first place).

I'm very open-minded and I don't see why, when a plant is a living organism, it isn't able to feel things like pain. But again, don't see their pain as the same pain as human beings or mammals. Think as more primative then that.

But what I don't get is the fuzz from some people about eating things that are sentient or not. Human beings need to survive just like the lion catching an antilope.

Tomato's are the fruit of a plant. It's merely there to use as a "fuel" for the seeds within to start growing into baby tomato-plants or to attract animals so they eat it and poo out the seeds making them having even better "fuel" to start with. So don't fear eating those, its not alive ;).

I'm pretty sure a needle pinch on a human being weighs heavier painwise, however (if possible at all) you measure it, than all the pain, if there is any at all, felt by plants killed by humans since.. ever. ;)

what? they estimate our brain to process at 100million mips? it would probably be possible to make some crude calculations there just for fun ;)

Plant's are actually alive, they grow and stuff and make energy for themselves.

They just don't move very fast. ^_^

As for whether they feel pain, that's a central nervous system function.

You've got to have things like nerve endings and a brain to have any remotely human sort of sensory perception.

Plants don't have that.

Animals on the other hand, most do. So killing/eating animals = bad. If you're concerned about this sort of thing.

Then as for whether the animals actually feel pain as pain like we do is possibly debatable. Especially with things like reptiles, fish, coral, or worms which are not so human like animals at all. Still this is something you'd hate to "guess" about and turn out being wrong and cause a great deal of unintended suffering over.

Then again humans are Omnivores and can eat and digest meat, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for us or the animals just that somewhere down the line it was evolutionarily favorable to be able to eat some meat.

Today, it most certainly is not and people get heart disease and other problems from bad high meat diets all the time. And we'd go a long ways to reducing our collective strain on the environment switching to vegetarian diets that shorten the food chain and waste much less energy.

A nervous system is indeed the system that we humans and most animals have to percieve and process everything around us. However, a nervous system does not have to be the only system in nature that makes lifeforms being able to feel touch or pain for example.

In plants it happends more on a cellular level without a central processing unit (brain of some sort). It's mostly a reaction that goes through all the cells of the plant. Like explained here

it is absolutely bullshit. this study is thrown around all the time by countless idiots, but it's not accepted by any remotely respected scientist--botanist, biologist, or anthropologist. it was even debunked on "The Myth Busters," for crying out loud.

I am tired of discussion on this site spiraling into shitty arguments by three or four people who know absolutely nothing about the topic. PLEASE _STOP. And that means YOU, CPLains.

THE GUY WHO CREATED U WAS UR DAD LIAM. spermy.

Photosynthesis requires carbon dioxide.

Where exactly is all of the CO2 going to come from if everything used the sun for energy and hence gave off Oxygen as a byproduct.
Eventually there'd not be enough left and stuff.

Oh and humans were not created science is pretty sure Darwin was right on how different species came about.

yea i should have put an 'if' somewhere in there.. i am not saying we were created. was talking hypothetically.

Err antibiotics and growth hormones are banned in farming over here and the animals do get outside except for the pigs I think but then again I have never spent any time on a farm with pigs so I wouldn't know.

iceland is a special case. The vast majority of farms in the west do use growth hormones & antibiotics

sucks to be rest of the west then

The future of food in general is bleak my friend.

Check out this statistic. In America :

1980 - 0 GM crop.
2003 - 100 million acres of land is growing GM crop.

80% of American beef is being processed by 4 companies.
Seeds, come from just 4 clusters of companies.

75% of the world's 1.4 billion farmers depend on saved seed as their primary seed source.

Now the scary thing is when you find out who is buying these seed companies and what they are doing and their intentions. Lookup a 'Monsanto', here is an example of what they are doing and trying to implement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Technology

Look at the retail sector to see what is happening. For example, in the UK a majority of people get their food from huge supermarket chains like Tesco. The same in America, Walmart. Eventually our food is going to be controlled by a small group of huge corporations if people don't wake the fuck up.

so what

Hehehehe, comments like #34 crack me up. Just about outweighs the nausea ^^

Well, killing animals for food (fast&painless!) is ok for me since I eat meat. But killing animals just for the satisfaction of some peoples craving for admiration is just sick.

:/

but animal is :-( in small cage @ life before QuickKill.

do you buy stuff like toys made in china? seen under what circumstances the people in the factories over there get to work, conditions that almost kill but at least surely injure them, including children? everyone is glad that enslaving people has become that cheap these days, yay! G8 anyone?

G8 is about as big a joke as the G7

its 1 bigger

Always quite disturbing how people can get shocked by these kind of videos and not specially by others things like millions of people starving in Africa or whatver human tragedies that happen every days.

(I think they skin them alive to get more "quality fur" , if i remember well..and keep in mind that there are rich buyers for these furs, else it wuldnt be happinging)

Anyway, yes this shouldn tbe happening...but there are more important matters than this.

starving in africa helps to keep the worlds population down slightly

that's a sweet justification.

so do the murderers in the UK, yet you pussies afford a police :>

Vote "Jack The Ripper" for a Better Tomorrow! :)

McGay Dirden (4fw bebeh)

As if Africa is overpopulated.

"the worlds population"
you cape coloured?

no its just a stupid argument.

Old + not as good as the clip where the asian woman squishes the kitten with high heels. I'll rate it 7/10.

oh nice! Linkie for plus-plus?

I've seen a mouse get squashed by someone wearing high heels but not a kitten.

http://rapidshare.com/files/30036425/snuffx-d...y.wmv.html

2,8 MB. Very graphic and GORE.

thanks! :-D

why the hell can't they kill the animals with a bullet in their head, or even kill it at all before they rip the fur off? WHY leave it to die slowly in great pain after they ripped the fur off? fucking sick people, hope they get AIDS

bullets cost money and theyd put holes in the fur

They can shoot a bullet in the head.

dunno about you but id want the head on the fur so i can wear it on top of my head like one of them vikings in king arthur. bear head on head = way cool

Killer whales torture seal pups for pleasure. We are no different from the rest of nature. However intelligent people realise there are more humane ways to kill animals instead of subjecting them to pain that we wouldn't want to endure ourselves. Some races/minorities are just pretty selfish bastards.

vegetarian4lyfe

Why do people always say peta sucks etc. They are always finding excuses. People if you don't give a fuck about animals just say it.

It's a metaphor, douche bag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

it really hurts to both se and know how they treat animals.
and i got such a bad feeling when se the fur in the eyes, it feels like im a part of this shit coz i dont do anything about it.

this is really disturbing but just happens to be one of the quadrillion problems on this planet. im sure these people are just doing their jobs but they really could do this a lot more humanely then skinning the animals alive and letting them sit there to die. i dont exactly agree with peta on many issues although this is really sad and i'd like to see the asshole running the place get skinned alive to see what its like. perhaps if he survived it, he would skin animals after they die.

just another sad problem on this planet that surely wont be fixed anytime soon because big corporations and unlimited capitalism seems to rule the day

i lol'd