Feds: Ohioan against fur planned murder-for-hire
Looks like running around naked and throwing paint on people just hasn't been convincing enough. Evidently the only way to convince someone your position is right is to kill them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, besides everything else, that's totally NOT how you go about contracting a hit. Idiot.
A better way to get her point across would be to hire someone to skin someone wearing a fur coat and then wear the skin as fashion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of an idiot thinks that a mink's life is worth more than a humans?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how much advice she had for the hit man: "Lady, you gave me the $730 dollars-in-cash-or-jewelry to kill someone, not get micro-managed, yeesh!"
...and fruit bats and orangutans, and breakfast cereals...
Skip a bit...
I hope and pray she gets the help she needs.
That's a pretty cheap hitman.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a post. Encouraging people to commit suicide isn't funny.
Removed a post. Encouraging people to commit suicide isn't funny.
Well funny is a subjective issue. You don't find it funny and its your site, so that is cool that YOU don't find it funny.
What kind of an idiot thinks that a mink's life is worth more than a humans?
Allow me to retort.
What kind of monster thinks this is okay.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of an idiot thinks that a mink's life is worth more than a humans?
Depends on the mink and the human in question, really. Does the mink sing? Is the human an attractive female with a pony-related fetish? Additional information is required to answer the question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Life feeds on life. It's a fact of nature. I'm not condoning unnecessary cruelty, but I have no problem with killing animals for food. Given the synthetic alternatives we have, wearing fur is an anachronistic luxury.
I do have a problem with people who think that murdering other human beings is a good way to forward their own political causes, especially if they think someone of age twelve or older makes a worthy target. That woman needs help.
Life feeds on life. It's a fact of nature. I'm not condoning unnecessary cruelty, but I have no problem with killing animals for food. Given the synthetic alternatives we have, wearing fur is an anachronistic luxury.
I do have a problem with people who think that murdering other human beings is a good way to forward their own political causes, especially if they think someone of age twelve or older makes a worthy target. That woman needs help.
And this is all that really needs to be said on the subject.
You can have two opposing, entrenched opinions about something and both be wrong.There is no need to be cruel to animals, it doesn't make the meat tastier or the skins prettier. On the flip side, people being violent about their cause doesn't help anyone. The goal should be spreading awareness.
What if the process of making synthetic clothe caused enormous ecological damage?* Damage that might not have occurred if animals were used? In that case, what would be the more "enlightened" choice?
*I have no evidence this is the case, just putting this out as a thought exercise.
I'm a devout anti-fur type. I agree that the way to stop it is by example and education. This woman is clearly disturbed and needs help.
What if the process of making synthetic clothe caused enormous ecological damage?* Damage that might not have occurred if animals were used? In that case, what would be the more "enlightened" choice?
*I have no evidence this is the case, just putting this out as a thought exercise.
Absurd hypothetical is absurd, but whatevz I'll bite:
Then the goal should be to "harvest" while causing the least amount of suffering. Like, maybe make sure the animal is dead before you skin it so it doesn't scream while you're doing it.
What if the process of making synthetic clothe caused enormous ecological damage?* Damage that might not have occurred if animals were used? In that case, what would be the more "enlightened" choice?
*I have no evidence this is the case, just putting this out as a thought exercise.
Absurd hypothetical is absurd, but whatevz I'll bite:
Then the goal should be to "harvest" while causing the least amount of suffering. Like, maybe make sure the animal is dead before you skin it so it doesn't scream while you're doing it.
The ecological damage done by the collection and processing of petroleum based chemicals is absurd? Really?
What if the process of making synthetic clothe caused enormous ecological damage?* Damage that might not have occurred if animals were used? In that case, what would be the more "enlightened" choice?
*I have no evidence this is the case, just putting this out as a thought exercise.
Then fur harvesting would be the viable alternative, if that were the case. But then science doesn't always factor in where lifestyle choices are concerned. A lot of people back organic farming as the "greener" choice, but studies have shown that organic farming of cattle produces higher rates of greenhouse gasses than conventional farming.
The ecological damage done by the collection and processing of petroleum based chemicals is absurd? Really?
No. Just your either/or question.
The world is full of people who think that terrorizing and killing people is the way to convince them of something. This ought to be known to all of us by now, and probably isn't even worth casual mention anymore (though serious study would be nice).
Because it is human nature, the only time any of us gets hot enough to start a thread about it, is when we are are odds or opposed to the message of the idiot doing the terrorizing, or they are in some way different from us. At that time, we conveniently forget that even people from our own schools and churches, people we knew and liked, can be terrorists, as the last twenty or thirty years has well proven.
I mention this only to point out that threads like these say more about us than they do the people we intend them to. All that happens is that decent people who happen to unfortunately share something in common with the terrorist find themselves in the difficult position of "outing" themselves to prove the merits of their beliefs, allowing those who share the OP's views the chance to hammer them. When we should all know by now that any good belief or ideal can be corrupted by these people, and that this does not mean the original message is automatically an evil one.
A more mature option might be to weigh whether the quick, one-time thrill we get from getting our cronies and ditto-heads to jump on and help us bash, is worth the awful position we put our other community members into, and the further spreading of stereotypes.
The ecological damage done by the collection and processing of petroleum based chemicals is absurd? Really?
Now you're just trolling. That's not what you asked, you posed a false dilemma. What's wrong with natural fibers like cotton?
But okay, show us all what the environmental impact is of making clothes from petrolium byproducts (i.e. things that would otherwise be waste) is compared to the production of an equal amount of clothing entirely from the skins of small animals.
When you hear stories like this it reminds me of why it is so hard to take fanatics seriously. I mean don't kill animals but do kill humans. Come on.
Its a crusader mentality, like people who shoot doctors who perform abortions to support the pro-life movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of an idiot thinks that a mink's life is worth more than a humans?
Life? Evolution? The Universe?
Well, these don't "think," but a falling meteor or a hurricane will kill you just as quickly and easily as it would a mink or an ant.
If I had a choice, I would eat the mink before I ate the human, of course. But value is subjective, and a construct we put onto lifeforms. Circumstance, natural order, and acts of god don't give a rat's butt who you think ought to be saved or sacrificed.
Edit: I'll go one farther. Minks don't intentionally misuse or pollute the natural resources of the Earth for their own convenience and enjoyment. Thus, if a person held the Earth in highest regard and the most valuable of all things, humans would be a pox.
Then fur harvesting would be the viable alternative, if that were the case. But then science doesn't always factor in where lifestyle choices are concerned. A lot of people back organic farming as the "greener" choice, but studies have shown that organic farming of cattle produces higher rates of greenhouse gasses than conventional farming.What if the process of making synthetic clothe caused enormous ecological damage?* Damage that might not have occurred if animals were used? In that case, what would be the more "enlightened" choice?
*I have no evidence this is the case, just putting this out as a thought exercise.
Well, to be fair, greenhouse gases aren't the prime motivator for the organic foods movement. It's more about groundwater and stream contamination from pesticide runoff, and encouraging the use of plants that produce their own seeds unlike Monsanto frankenfoods.
Well, to be fair, greenhouse gases aren't the prime motivator for the organic foods movement. It's more about groundwater and stream contamination from pesticide runoff, and encouraging the use of plants that produce their own seeds unlike Monsanto frankenfoods.
Then fur harvesting would be the viable alternative, if that were the case. But then science doesn't always factor in where lifestyle choices are concerned. A lot of people back organic farming as the "greener" choice, but studies have shown that organic farming of cattle produces higher rates of greenhouse gasses than conventional farming.
True, but I was simply pointing out that not all decisions are completely right or wrong. There are downsides people are willing to overlook in favor of being on the right side of the argument. The idea that organic farming doesn't use dangerous pesticides is another misnomer. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it isn't harmful. The reason American tobacco has traces of arsenic in it while tobacco from Europe does not is because arsenic was used as a pesticide. It remains in the soil and is in turn absorbed by the crop. Yet the messages by anti-smoking campaigns simplified the message by stating "Cigarettes have arsenic in them, just like rat poison." Not entirely untrue, but not entirely true either.
What kind of an idiot thinks that a mink's life is worth more than a humans?Allow me to retort.
What kind of monster thinks this is okay.
That's not really a retort, thats like throwing pictures of dead babies in the faces of people just trying to get condoms.
Also, thinking human life has more inherent worth than a rodent =/= ok with animal cruelty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we weren't meant to eat critters, they wouldn't be tasty.
Not only is it a snappy slogan, it makes perfect evolutionary/biological sense.
Just sayin'.
So does killing every competing male and taking all of the females for yourself. Biological sense is often at odds with morality.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So does killing every competing male and taking all of the females for yourself.If we weren't meant to eat critters, they wouldn't be tasty.
Not only is it a snappy slogan, it makes perfect evolutionary/biological sense.
Just sayin'.
We can DO that?
What kind of an idiot thinks that a mink's life is worth more than a humans?Allow me to retort.
What kind of monster thinks this is okay.
I have far from enough German to follow the narration, so you'll have to tell me what the problem is. 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.
|
We can DO that?So does killing every competing male and taking all of the females for yourself.If we weren't meant to eat critters, they wouldn't be tasty.
Not only is it a snappy slogan, it makes perfect evolutionary/biological sense.
Just sayin'.
On Dec 22 this year, there won't be much to stop you!
I have far from enough German to follow the narration, so you'll have to tell me what the problem is. 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.
Is it okay for me to torture my puppy? It's my property, to do with as I please, right?
Is it okay for me to torture my puppy? It's my property, to do with as I please, right?I have far from enough German to follow the narration, so you'll have to tell me what the problem is. 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.
I assume you're speaking hypothetically, but here in the US animal cruelty is a felony in several states, if not a federal felony.
@Samnell Depicted or portrayed? (Yes, my post is more nuanced than the US legal system.)
How did we go from killing animals to torturing them?
I don't know, how did we go from wearing animals around to killing each other?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Samnell Depicted or portrayed? (Yes, my post is more nuanced than the US legal system.)
Let's go with portrayed by naked elves in an interpretative dance. :)
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.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can DO that?So does killing every competing male and taking all of the females for yourself.If we weren't meant to eat critters, they wouldn't be tasty.
Not only is it a snappy slogan, it makes perfect evolutionary/biological sense.
Just sayin'.
Worked for me. And then I skinned them and used their hides to make her wedding dress.
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.
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.
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.
How did we go from killing animals to torturing them?With gigantic leaps in failed logic my friend.
My logic is, as always, pristine and infallible.
Skinning animals alive is unnecessary cruelty. Perhaps a brief viewing of the video might elicit some comprehension on your part.