the bear Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Anything that promotes cruelty to animals, fake or not has no place on here IMO. I request that you remove this link. Note the lack of emoticons as I am serious. Moderators please do your jobs
gee_fin Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I don't think it's promoting cruelty at all? It's like a faked outtake from you've been framed. /imo
MAT1800 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 For what it's worth... I disagree with animal cruelty, but don't find that clip offensive. And it's certainly not something likely to be 're-created'
the bear Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I disgree that it is not likely to be recreated. The 'you've been framed' style of TV programme relies on peoples greed to create stupid situations that they can film and use for profit. I trust that most of us on here are not influenced by this sort of so called funny prank. However.......... There is a significant element of our society that is frankly incapable of thought, let alone rational evaluation. People are influenced by what they see and as the barriers are lowered our tolerence to cruelty and abuse increases. A quick tour of sites such as included in the above link should be enough to convince most people that there are dangerous idiots out there. When they are endangering or injuring themselves that fine, that is their choice. Animals often have no choice. This is an open forum, we are not allowed to use foul language, abusive comments or links to questionable sexual material without warning. Why should it be acceptable to show anything that could cause harm to an animal that has limited capability of protecting itself. I spend at least one day per week assisting my wife in her work as a Welfare Officer with Cats Protection. I see the results of this relaxed attitude to animal welfare and cruely first hand on a regular basis. Let me ask a question of you all before you decide that my concern is misplaced or that I am overreacting. What would you do if the same thing was allowed to happen to a one or two year old baby? A cat has a very similar ability to make humans understand that is is uncomfortable, in pain or threatened. By placing this link and accepting it we are making it clear that we feel it is acceptable to us as a society. A group or a society's maturity is reflected by it's intent and determination to protect the vunerable or defenseless. I for one have no desire to be associated with this crass stupidy and I hope that any club, group or society that I belong or subscribe gives me no cause to be embarrassed or ashamed of my association with them.
Boomy Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 There was another cat advert doing the rounds too where it gets its head chopped off in a sunroof!.
Blatman Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I agree with much of what bear says, but I would add this. Animal cruelty (as with child abuse) was happening before the internet. The difference now is that if people choose, they can view it. I don't think that these clearly faked videos act as some sort of recruitment mechanism that encourages "new" people in to cruelty . Those who are cruel to animals or children will be so whether these videos (or the internet) exists or not, and those who have higher morals won't be.
MAT1800 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I feel that 'Freedom Of speech' is far more important than the saftey of a few animals.... I'm sure other will disagree, that is my point.... Would it be right for someone who is against 'cars' because they had lost someone as a result of a reckless driver, to have all car clubs abolished? I think not, I belive it is better to allow people the right to say what they want. Thousands of people die everyday as a result of poverty, yet you and me, have spent thousands on a car (which is bascially a toy) so I think we should accept that, what we may think is right and morally correct is always subjective and makes Freedom of speech essential to ensure that we are able to choose ourselves what we think is a right way to behave and what isn't. I Know people who would find what I've spent on my car as offensive, considering the world we live in and the problems so many people in it have to deal with Once you make a single group resonsible for deciding what is morally right and what isn't you are playing a dangerous game, where so long as you agree with them it's all fine. However if you don't then you'll find you are no longer able to voice that opinion because there is no longer that right to speak out against the 'group'. So IMO, suffering posts that you think are offensive is worth the trade off, for then being allowed to disagree with it! All just IMO of course.
the bear Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I feel that 'Freedom Of speech' is far more important than the saftey of a few animals.... I'm sure other will disagree, that is my point.... Would it be right for someone who is against 'cars' because they had lost someone as a result of a reckless driver, to have all car clubs abolished? I think not, I belive it is better to allow people the right to say what they want. Thousands of people die everyday as a result of poverty, yet you and me, have spent thousands on a car (which is bascially a toy) so I think we should accept that, what we may think is right and morally correct is always subjective and makes Freedom of speech essential to ensure that we are able to choose ourselves what we think is a right way to behave and what isn't. I Know people who would find what I've spent on my car as offensive, considering the world we live in and the problems so many people in it have to deal with Once you make a single group resonsible for deciding what is morally right and what isn't you are playing a dangerous game, where so long as you agree with them it's all fine. However if you don't then you'll find you are no longer able to voice that opinion because there is no longer that right to speak out against the 'group'. So IMO, suffering posts that you think are offensive is worth the trade off, for then being allowed to disagree with it! All just IMO of course. I think you may need to read what you have said again. How can cruelty be defended by crap about Free Speech. The laws about cars are significant, broad and on the whole up to date albeit we may disgree with them. They are there to protect all. Extending your arguement, my right to freedom of speech leads down the path of promoting the driving of a Westfield through a crowded shopping precinct because I think it would be funny! I agree with Blatters, it did all exist before the internet but we all have the responsibility to halt the promotion of it through this medium. I am a James Bond Movie fan, compare the levels of violence and sexual nature in films from two era's. Daimonds are Forever and the last one. The former has a 15 or PG rating the latter a 12 yet the latter is far more violent. The goalposts of acceptabilty slowly move because we become complacent to the content.
corsechris Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 You asked what we think. I don't like it. 100% with Bear. Freedom of speech my ar5e. Just because you can offend doesn't mean you have to.
MAT1800 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 How can cruelty be defended by crap about Free Speech. promoting the driving of a Westfield through a crowded shopping precinct because I think it would be funny! The goalposts of acceptabilty slowly move because we become complacent to the content. I wasn't defending Cruelty, I was defending the right for Members to make posts, other members disagree with. The westfield through the shopping centre argument, IMO is just plain daft. I think the fact that the 'goal posts' of aceptability have changed is a good thing, it proves the system is working. The rules change as the 'majorties' opinon changes. And how great is it that we can have this discussion without the thread being deleted, even though there is obviously a difference in opinion and belifes... I'd presumed from your original post you wanted that linked removed. I think it would have been wrong to do so, unless a lot of people complained.
Pembroke Pat Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I always though Harold Lloyd was funny hanging off a clock tower or the women being tied to a railways track by some dastardly fiend in a silent movie but it doesn't mean that I or any sane person would do it for real. we know it is fake and find it funny. by the way, I am glad that we can agree to differ. It is something we should treasure when other communities are clearly incapable of it.
Recommended Posts