Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Anti-Fur Believer Looks to Kill Fur Wearers


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, if we are going to kill cattle and pigs for their meat, then using their hides for leather products just seems to be better to me than just throwing it away or killing other cattle or pigs (or other animals) for just their hide.


pres man wrote:
Hey, if we are going to kill cattle and pigs for their meat, then using their hides for leather products just seems to be better to me than just throwing it away or killing other cattle or pigs (or other animals) for just their hide.

Yep! I dig it.

Alls I'm gettin' at is that, as a culture, wearing animal skins was just a byproduct of eating them. When that stops being the case s~~! gets out of whack. I mean the first caveman who saw a rabbit wasn't all like "that's make a b&@!*in' hat" it was probably more like "oh god if I don't eat something soon I'm going to die".


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yea, I have to side with Jeff and Benicio here. That's REALLY creepy, Samnell. My family keeps cats, so I have experience with pets, and I can't imagine wanting to be around the type of person who'd hurt them for fun.
Well, what about the type of person who would feel badly for killing them for the sake of necessity? (seriously, it's a thing)
That's different. Killing for meat isn't the same as torturing for fun.
True, but I'm pretty sure the animal you're eating/wearing/whatever never even knew the difference, right?

Well, even to the animal there's a difference between a sudden painless death and slow protracted torture.

But we're actually discussing the mentality of a person who would enjoy torturing animals. Not willing to kill them for food or because it's a job. Not like eating meat or wearing fur or leather without thinking too much about the creatures they came from.But torturing for fun. Enjoying cutting into them or flaying their skin and breaking their bones, while listening to their cries of pain and fear until the struggles get weaker and weaker and finally stop. Anyone who can enjoy that has serious problems and should be in treatment if not locked safely away. If he has so little empathy for animals he likely has little more for humans.

This.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Moorluck wrote:
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Again, no logical point was made.

How in the halibut to you argue that point as illogical?

How do you argue that a series of non-sequitur photographs with no commentary IS some sort of logical argument?

/boggle

A picture is worth a thousand words?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
The lack of empathy you're displaying here scares the hell out of me. And anyone who would torture animals for fun is someone I would not trust around human beings.

I'm not sure why you're scared by my post, especially when you put the lines right under the lines where I say that I'm not personally interested in torturing cats or dogs for fun. Nor, for that matter, am I especially interested in watching. I probably wouldn't keep company with those who did.

But I feel the exact same way about a lot of things that don't reach the level of morality.


Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The lack of empathy you're displaying here scares the hell out of me. And anyone who would torture animals for fun is someone I would not trust around human beings.

I'm not sure why you're scared by my post, especially when you put the lines right under the lines where I say that I'm not personally interested in torturing cats or dogs for fun. Nor, for that matter, am I especially interested in watching. I probably wouldn't keep company with those who did.

But I feel the exact same way about a lot of things that don't reach the level of morality.

Because you claim to have the same lack of concern for suffering animals as going to "watch sewers be cleaned or turn on a football game"

The first I see as horrible and raising serious questions about the persons sanity. The second is an unpleasant necessity. The 3rd doesn't interest me, but I can see how people enjoy it.

Maybe you're just expressing yourself badly.


Where does the following fall?

Bull/Bronco Riding?

Bull Fighting?

Running of the Bulls?

Da Bulls?


Samnell badger doesn't give a s$$!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mothman wrote:


How about an immature chimpanzee? Or a human baby for that matter?

I would find it slightly easier to defend an immature chimpanzee being tortured than to defend an adult chimpanzee being tortured. My understanding is that, so far as we can tell, adult chimpanzees seem to have about the same level of cognitive ability as a human three year old. That being the case, I think we should treat them equivalently so far as is practical.

As for human babies, generally I'd say torturing them isn't ok. Some forms of harm, however, are. Specifically I'm thinking of incidental harm done in the course of medicine: shots, necessary surgeries, things like that. This sort of thing can hurt, as I think we've all experienced.

Mothman wrote:


Your opinions here appear to me to be at odds with the political views and beliefs that are mentioned in your profile Samnell (I don’t think you can claim an animal to be a consenting party when it comes to humans inflicting violence on them, and violence in real life is violence in real life whether its perpetrated against a human or animal), so I’m going to assume you’re commenting so to get a reaction rather than due to actual conviction.

No, I'm quite serious. Non-human animals are generally not people. Our close relatives seem to be the best candidates for it. Most species are very far from even being in the same ballpark. Their consent isn't relevant. No one is being harmed, so there's no problem.

I suppose it would help to be a little more specific what I mean when I say "people" in the moral sense. A person is an organism which demonstrates cognitive faculties within the broad range of the norm for adult humans. Why humans? So far they seem to be the best brains around. If a species considerably more capable than humans showed up tomorrow, that would necessitate a substantial revision. They would become the new standard and their desires, preferences, etc would to at least some degree take precedence over our own.

That may sound cold, but it is what we already do. We don't have dogs vote. Seriously impaired humans (I'm related to a few.) don't get to manage their full lives like they were cognitively normal but instead we have people look after them and on occasion make necessary choices for them and even, if less frequently, over their serious objections. We all spend some time in that state when we are young and, if we are unfortunate, also again when we are old. For that reason it's strange to me that one of my most socially-informed opinions is one which so often draws such objections.

Mothman wrote:


Having said that, people (as a whole) seem to have a whole lot of shades of grey when it comes to animal rights and morality in relation to animals. Things that are generally viewed as okay to do to a crab are not okay to do to a mouse, things that are generally okay to do to a mouse are not okay to do to a cow, things that are generally okay to do to a cow are not okay to do to a dog and so on. It is a tricky area filled with ethical pitfalls.

I quite agree that not all animals are the same. I'm in favor of quite a bit more conscientious treatment of humans than I am of dogs. Likewise I want chimpanzees treated better than lice. I'm somewhat agnostic about the state making laws regulating how non-human animal property can be treated. I have no objection to placing limits on property rights, which I think are pretty suspect in the best of times, and of course I'm entirely in favor of laws to preserve human safety and sanitation. But that's because those laws are for the good of people. Laws that would restrict the freedom of people just for the sake of non-people? I admit I don't get especially incensed over the mundane variety of this kind of thing, but if only one person is involved I don't think morality is even applicable. (I do object, depending on the type of animal and the nature of the restriction. But it's not something I get very worked up over.) It's for sorting obligations, duties, and generally managing relationships between people, after all.

If it's of further help, one reason I don't currently have a cat is that I was informed it would need to be declawed. I didn't personally want to be party to that and so demurred. I don't especially care if someone else's cat is declawed, though. That's their cat and their business.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Because you claim to have the same lack of concern for suffering animals as going to "watch sewers be cleaned or turn on a football game"

The first I see as horrible and raising serious questions about the persons sanity. The second is an unpleasant necessity. The 3rd doesn't interest me, but I can see how people enjoy it.

Maybe you're just expressing yourself badly.

It wouldn't be the first time I've expressed myself poorly. Watching sewer cleaning, football, or torturing a cat or dog that you own in the privacy of your own home and endangering no one are all things that don't reach the level of morality in my book. I find all three personally distasteful to varying degrees and shall admit the torturing of cats and dogs is the worst of the three. Number two is watching football.

But that's my personal taste. If morality is just our personal tastes, then it's sensible to say that it's immoral for someone to wear your least favorite color of shirt. I don't think that's sensible, so I require additional factors and independent personal distaste to see something as immoral.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just think of how much fur we waste every year because people don't feel comfortable using cat or dog fur. I mean we put millions of dogs and cats to death every year in our "humane" centers and destroy their bodies. What a terrible waste, if we are going to kill them we might as well make some good come out of it. I think somewhere a native american is crying.


I honestly don't give 2 s!&@s about PETA if only because they are so often over the top. That doesn't excuse torture whether its of animals or humans, that sadistic nature is just messed up.

However not every g$%*$%n person who skins or kills animals is some sadistic f*** doing it for the thrills. I wish people would stop making these broad stereotypes, that what pisses me so off about PETA. I'm actually antifur for the same reason I'm against diamond mining, there are cheaper, artificial, and less violent ways to replicate the stuff.

Some lunatic decides she wants to get a child killed so she can get attention, that is so messed up on so many levels. I see that she cared about the little furry animals, but at some point she just stopped caring about people and who she hurt because they were less important than animals making her no better than the people who kill animals to survive in the first place.

People make broad stereotypes so there are going to be some who will associate antifur with attempting to murder children for media press. Humanity is such fail sometimes.

Shadow Lodge

pres man wrote:

Where does the following fall?

Bull/Bronco Riding?

The bull has a bad 8 seconds a few times a week. Can i get that job?

Quote:
Bull Fighting?

Inexcusable torture and an inhumane death of an innocent being. I cheer when i see matadores on the news getting impaled.

Quote:
Running of the Bulls?

I don't know what happens to that at the end but the running itself seems benign enough to the bulls...

Qadira

pres man wrote:
Just think of how much fur we waste every year because people don't feel comfortable using cat or dog fur. I mean we put millions of dogs and cats to death every year in our "humane" centers and destroy their bodies. What a terrible waste, if we are going to kill them we might as well make some good come out of it. I think somewhere a native american is crying.

I'm picturing a pimp in a Pomeranian coat for some reason...

What about meat? There are people who supplement their diets with roadkill. There's plenty of edible meat going to waste with all those dogs and cats, that other cultures wouldn't blink an eye at using for meals.


Shadowborn wrote:
pres man wrote:
Just think of how much fur we waste every year because people don't feel comfortable using cat or dog fur. I mean we put millions of dogs and cats to death every year in our "humane" centers and destroy their bodies. What a terrible waste, if we are going to kill them we might as well make some good come out of it. I think somewhere a native american is crying.

I'm picturing a pimp in a Pomeranian coat for some reason...

What about meat? There are people who supplement their diets with roadkill. There's plenty of edible meat going to waste with all those dogs and cats, that other cultures wouldn't blink an eye at using for meals.

It depends on how they are killed I would guess. I mean you wouldn't want to eat poisoned meat.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Running of the Bulls?

I don't know what happens to that at the end but the running itself seems benign enough to the bulls...

I believe they run the bulls into the arena (whatever that's called, I forget) and then, over the next couple of days, they kill them during the fights.

At least, that's what happened in The Sun Also Rises.


Wyatt Cenac discusses animal slavery with PETA representative.


Hee hee!

Shadow Lodge

Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Have you ever had a dog or any pet? Or spent enough time with one to know it?

On the first question, fish once but not a mammal. I've thought several times that I'd quite like a cat. On the second, no but I don't see how that would make a difference. I mean I have emotional connections to all kinds of non-person things but that doesn't mean they deserve rights.

thejeff wrote:


No, they're not people. That doesn't mean it's okay to abuse them.

I can't quite agree. If they're not people then abuse isn't really an applicable category to my thinking. Abuse is something we do to people. It's wrong because they don't want it. (Otherwise it's just BDSM or whatever.) Not being people, the desires and well-being of cats and dogs are not something that people should view as necessarily binding. One can heed them if one likes, of course, but I don't see why they would be taken as proscriptive.

thejeff wrote:


Killing animals for food, or even clothing, is one thing, but you can do it with unnecessary cruelty.
Certainly one can. Or one can opt otherwise. I don't personally want a front row seat to the torturing of a cat or dog, but there are a great many things that we might not want to partake of ourselves that aren't necessarily immoral. I'm similarly disinclined to go watch sewers be cleaned or turn on a football game.

Restricting animal abuse is not really equivalent to granting them rights unless you mean the right not to suffer needlessly. But wording it that way is a bit absurd. We aren't talking about rights like the right to vote, work, free speech, etc...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
What kind of an idiot thinks that a mink's life is worth more than a humans?

Sadly, I've known ferrets, weasels, minks, etc. whose company was worth a lot more than the company of a lot of humans I know.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Also, thinking human life has more inherent worth than a rodent =/= ok with animal cruelty.

Minks aren't rodents; they eat rodents. The family Mustelidae (including ferrets, otters, weasels, badgers, skunks, wolverines, minks, etc.) belongs to the order Carnivora, along with dogs and cats.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

I honestly don't give 2 s$*@s about PETA if only because they are so often over the top. That doesn't excuse torture whether its of animals or humans, that sadistic nature is just messed up.

However not every g&@+$#n person who skins or kills animals is some sadistic f*** doing it for the thrills. I wish people would stop making these broad stereotypes, that what pisses me so off about PETA. I'm actually antifur for the same reason I'm against diamond mining, there are cheaper, artificial, and less violent ways to replicate the stuff.

Some lunatic decides she wants to get a child killed so she can get attention, that is so messed up on so many levels. I see that she cared about the little furry animals, but at some point she just stopped caring about people and who she hurt because they were less important than animals making her no better than the people who kill animals to survive in the first place.

People make broad stereotypes so there are going to be some who will associate antifur with attempting to murder children for media press. Humanity is such fail sometimes.

If you follow the discussion on this thread the "sadistic f*** doing it for the thrills" only came up after the video of skinning minks alive was posted and Samnell asked what was wrong with it:
Quote:

Does the process being depicted cause the product to be somehow dangerous to human health, like putting lead in toys or something? Were the animals skinned not the property of the people doing the skinning?

I could see the problem if that's the case, but otherwise I don't know what the fuss is.

The disbelief and outrage that followed that led to questions that established that he really didn't care if animals were tortured by "sadistic f*** doing it for the thrills", though he wasn't interested in watching.

I have never said, nor do I think anyone else on this thread has said, that "every g&@+$#n person who skins or kills animals is some sadistic f*** doing it for the thrills." If anything I've said implies that, I didn't intend it to. I wouldn't have mentioned torture at all if someone hadn't already been defending it.


Logic search completed. Not much being used here.


I'm sorry my response was hasty and filled with frustration, but if you read through this thread, look at the actions of the woman in the first article, or listen to what PETA has to say, there are a lot of people implying that if you're not anti-fur you're then you're automatically okay with torture. I can't express how much I hate that dichotomy mentality.

Qadira

pres man wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
pres man wrote:
Just think of how much fur we waste every year because people don't feel comfortable using cat or dog fur. I mean we put millions of dogs and cats to death every year in our "humane" centers and destroy their bodies. What a terrible waste, if we are going to kill them we might as well make some good come out of it. I think somewhere a native american is crying.

I'm picturing a pimp in a Pomeranian coat for some reason...

What about meat? There are people who supplement their diets with roadkill. There's plenty of edible meat going to waste with all those dogs and cats, that other cultures wouldn't blink an eye at using for meals.

It depends on how they are killed I would guess. I mean you wouldn't want to eat poisoned meat.

Well, yeah, you'd have to change procedure. CO2 inhalation would be quick and painless.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I'm sorry my response was hasty and filled with frustration, but if you read through this thread, look at the actions of the woman in the first article, or listen to what PETA has to say, there are a lot of people implying that if you're not anti-fur you're then you're automatically okay with torture. I can't express how much I hate that dichotomy mentality.

Yes, the women in the article is crazy and wrong. PETA goes much too far, though I don't think they advocate murder.

I don't didn't get the same impression from this thread. Several people who were calling out the torture, including me, have specifically said it's the unnecessary cruelty we object to, not the fur.
Or the meat. I don't wear fur, but I do eat meat.


I'm sorry, guys. I feel like I really dropped the ball by not posting this already.

And, yes, I know Columbus is not Akron, but please, cut me some slack.


thejeff wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I'm sorry my response was hasty and filled with frustration, but if you read through this thread, look at the actions of the woman in the first article, or listen to what PETA has to say, there are a lot of people implying that if you're not anti-fur you're then you're automatically okay with torture. I can't express how much I hate that dichotomy mentality.

Yes, the women in the article is crazy and wrong. PETA goes much too far, though I don't think they advocate murder.

I don't didn't get the same impression from this thread. Several people who were calling out the torture, including me, have specifically said it's the unnecessary cruelty we object to, not the fur.
Or the meat. I don't wear fur, but I do eat meat.

I don't think PETA advocates murder either, as much as they like to get into other people's business, as far as I know they aren't trying to kill people. That would be no better than assuming that all fur trappers are sadistic.

Let me ask you a question though; what purpose was the link posted on the front page other than to get people riled up? I'll admit that what they did to those was sick, twisted, disgusting, and unnecessarily cruel, but that's not what all fur trappers are like.

Everyone is so quick to make assumptions and take sides. The actual article isn't even about killing fur-wearers it's about a woman who hired someone to kill an innocent child regardless of whether or not that child was wearing fur so that she could advocate her beliefs. It just so happened that her beliefs were anti-fur.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Let me ask you a question though; what purpose was the link posted on the front page other than to get people riled up? I'll admit that what they did to those was sick, twisted, disgusting, and unnecessarily cruel, but that's not what all fur trappers are like.

What purpose was the thread made for at all except to get people riled up?

It's the Internet. I'm sure half the posters here are just trolling.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Everyone is so quick to make assumptions and take sides. The actual article isn't even about killing fur-wearers it's about a woman who hired someone to kill an innocent child regardless of whether or not that child was wearing fur so that she could advocate her beliefs. It just so happened that her beliefs were anti-fur.

I still don't see the "make assumptions and take sides" going on here.

Everyone pretty much agrees the lady in the article was wrong, and probably nuts. There isn't much to say about that.

I'd think everyone would agree that skinning minks alive is wrong, but I'm apparently wrong about that.


thejeff wrote:

What purpose was the thread made for at all except to get people riled up?

It's the Internet. I'm sure half the posters here are just trolling.

Cool, I just hop online for a good troll every now and then. I mean screw actually trying to learn, discuss, and share ideas. If anyone puts light on a particular subject, half the time it's just trolling. Better not mention when people are being obnoxious though, I might get shot for that.

thejeff wrote:
I still don't see the "make assumptions and take sides" going on here.

Well it's right there on page 1 which instantly resulted in a lot of arguments and hurt feelings on both sides, but it's okay some people just miss things. I mean it's a lot of implied generalizations. Such as implying that if someone puts an animal's life over a human's they're an idiot or if someone doesn't that means they think skinning animals alive is a-okay, that they're okay with animal cruelty.

thejeff wrote:
I'd think everyone would agree that skinning minks alive is wrong, but I'm apparently wrong about that.

I can't tell you what everyone agrees on, sorry. I was just trying to point out that not all skinners skin things while they're alive. That not all people that kill or harm do it out of a need for destruction or mutilation.

I don't know what's up with Samnell, my objections were in response to the first page.

Shadow Lodge

Asphere wrote:
I can't quite agree. If they're not people then abuse isn't really an applicable category to my thinking. Abuse is something we do to people. It's wrong because they don't want it. (Otherwise it's just BDSM or whatever.) Not being people, the desires and well-being of cats and dogs are not something that people should view as necessarily binding. One can heed them if one likes, of course, but I don't see why they would be taken as proscriptive.

Right. so all you have to do is take a being that can obviously think, feel pain, and suffer, declare that its not really a person and do whatever you want to it because you can.

What can POSSIBLY go wrong...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're not really a person, BNW, so your opinion is irrelevant.

:)

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

a·buse (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.
n. (-bys)
1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
3. Sexual abuse.
4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
5. Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.

Hmmmm, I don't see anything about the victim being sentient.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


I don't know what's up with Samnell

<.<

>.>

Dude's probably crazy.


Samnell wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


I don't know what's up with Samnell

<.<

>.>

Dude's probably crazy.

Sanity is dependent on perspective and morality is a thing of consensus.

Anyway, in my own personal belief on the subject of animal abuse, anything sentient enough to feel and express pain is sentient enough to care about. I can only find depravity in those that enjoy or advocate it. I don't see how it helps anyone to be cruel in such a way thus it is unnecessary and only brings about pain and suffering.

Andoran

I believe this is relevant.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

I'm sorry, guys. I feel like I really dropped the ball by not posting this already.

And, yes, I know Columbus is not Akron, but please, cut me some slack.

NO WAY.........Comrade Columbus is a $#@*ing college town and Akron ( my home town ! ! ! ! ) is A Working Class Community/City/Post Industrial experiment in the works. Ive told you the stories and DON'T EVER CONFUSE THE TWO....


Yes, Comrade Goblin, and close and dear to my heart is the Rubber Strike of '36 (although not as dear as the Toledo Auto-Lite strike of '34, led by the American Workers Party of A.J. Muste, Sidney Hook and James Burnham--if anyone's cross-reading the Government Folly thread--the synergistic weirdiosity is freaking me out!!)

But, if I may be pedantic, Chrissie Hynde is a bigtime PETA supporter, the song is about Ohio, and even though there is a huge difference between animal rights and deindustrialization, 2 out of 3 hits is enough to get you linked by Doodlebug Anklebiter, Paizo's resident expert on the history of rock'n'roll.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
Samnell wrote:
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Is it okay for me to torture my puppy? It's my property, to do with as I please, right?

Assuming you mean that you're torturing it just for personal entertainment or something of that sort.

Legally? I'd say that depends on jurisdiction. Morally, I don't see the problem as long as any excess aggression the dog might display as a result is confined to you. So keep it locked inside if you're going to do something that could make it more dangerous to random passers by.

I'd not something I'd do myself, mind. I just don't see it as rising to the level of morality. Dogs aren't people.

I'd be against torturing a adult chimpanzee, though.

The question of torturing a nonhuman is very directly related to the likelihood that the same person would torture a human. Think in terms of serial killers who are documented to have manifested their pathologies by first torturing and killing animals. But this may be cultural--a Korean dog farmer would be aghast at the suggestion that he'd translate brutalizing his dogs to torturing a child. It's a disregard for life that goes beyond utilitarianism and business--though the average person in the video is not likely actively enjoying what they're doing, and the animals are being brutalized because the work crews are 'in a hurry' and trying to meet a quota.

At any rate, the wonton disregard for which the animals in the video are treated is troubling, but not unusual in Asia. I've lived a good portion of my life in Asia and animals simply aren't considered 'life' in countries like Japan, Korea and China--not in the same way Westerners, especially, Americans, consider animals. The idea that animals have 'rights' simply doesn't make sense to the average Asian. I live in Korea right now; I'm speaking from first hand observation.


Andrew Turner wrote:


The question of torturing a nonhuman is very directly related to the likelihood that the same person would torture a human. Think in terms of serial killers who are documented to have manifested their pathologies by first torturing and killing animals. But this may be cultural--a Korean dog farmer would be aghast at the suggestion that he'd translate brutalizing his dogs to torturing a child. It's a disregard for life that goes beyond utilitarianism and business--though the average person in the video is not likely actively enjoying what they're doing, and the animals are being brutalized because the work crews are 'in a hurry' and trying to meet a quota.

At any rate, the wonton disregard for which the animals in the video are treated is troubling, but not unusual in Asia. I've lived a good portion of my life in Asia and animals simply aren't considered 'life' in countries like Japan, Korea and China--not in the same way Westerners, especially, Americans, consider animals. The idea that animals have 'rights' simply doesn't make sense to the average Asian. I live in Korea right now; I'm speaking from first hand observation.

This is very true. Do NOT google "wind dried chicken" or "Huo Jia Lu". Or do, whatevah.


Yeah ... there's "delicacies" that make Foie Gras sound tame.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, have to chime in on bullfighting:
If my choices as a bull are to a)go to the burger factory or b)fight for a life of luxury or death by combat, defending myself from my fate... I'm gonna go with b. And I think an angry bull would agree with me.
Oh, and hiring hit man = bad, animal cruelty = bad, fur = warm, and meat (baccon) = delicious.

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Anti-Fur Believer Looks to Kill Fur Wearers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.