The victims of Ricky Gervais

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

The posters point was that it would be weird if a butcher was posing, grinning, by the results of their kill.

It was exactly the point I addressed.

That wasn't the poster's point at all. It's all about the intent behind the photograph.

No comparison between a "look at what i just managed to kill" style photo (which is what rubadub was talking about) and a "you can buy this lovely meat here" advertising photo (which is what you linked to).

Pointless to argue that there is.

ScumLord

osarusan wrote: »

That wasn't the poster's point at all. It's all about the intent behind the photograph.

No comparison between a "look at what i just managed to kill" style photo (which is what rubadub was talking about) and a "you can buy this lovely meat here" advertising photo (which is what you linked to).

Pointless to argue that there is.

So once it's been reduced to it's parts it's ok to pose with it? As long as it doesn't have a face you won't get offended, it's far enough removed from the animal it used to be for you to feel good about it again.

Irish Guitarist

How did wildlife ever survive before humans became moral guardians of the planet and decided what animals should live or die or what ones should be culled? If only someone would have posed next to a diplodocus that they had shot millions of years ago we would still have dinosaurs.

osarusan

ScumLord wrote: »

So once it's been reduced to it's parts it's ok to pose with it? As long as it doesn't have a face you won't get offended, it's far enough removed from the animal it used to be for you to feel good about it again.

Complete strawman argument, which totally ignores what I posted.

dodderangler

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Wow, what kind of rifle have you got that you can headshot a rabbit every single time? Or do you crouch, smeared in rabbit feces, until they're close enough to look in your eyes while you pop them with a shotgun?

Or, more realistically, how many times have you missed, and watched an injured animal drag itself away to bleed out a long and painful death in its burrow?

Well with my rifle they don't exactly get back up as it's a fox rifle but on rabbits it's great aswell.
Question: am I being cruel shooting land riddled with mixxy or should I let them suffer with it?

ScumLord

osarusan wrote: »

Complete strawman argument, which totally ignores what I posted.

It's not, why is it different for a hunter to pose smiling with a dead animal, than a butcher holding a plate of the animal all cut into bits smiling. Some butcher kill the animal, cut it up then hand the bits of the animal to you with a smile. How is that better than a hunter taking a picture with a dead wild animal.

What about farmers that help the cattle into the world, raise it and then have it killed? How is that better than killing an animal you've never met before?

There is very little difference.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

That wasn't the poster's point at all. It's all about the intent behind the photograph.

No comparison between a "look at what i just managed to kill" style photo (which is what rubadub was talking about) and a "you can buy this lovely meat here" advertising photo (which is what you linked to).

Pointless to argue that there is.

Ha!

It comes down to the assumed intent behind the smiles of people posing with dead animals!

You surely would not say it's pointless to suggest their may be motives for smiling other than the 2 identified. Perhaps both have the exact same reason, a satisfied "didn't I do well"?

osarusan

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not, why is it different for a hunter to pose smiling with a dead animal, than a butcher holding a plate of the animal all cut into bits smiling. Some butcher kill the animal, cut it up then hand the bits of the animal to you with a smile. How is that better than a hunter taking a picture with a dead wild animal.

What about farmers that help the cattle into the world, raise it and then have it killed? How is that better than killing an animal you've never met before?

There is very little difference.

Did you even read my post?

It' all about intent, and what the person was trying to express by being in the photograph.

For the woman in the OP, the intent is to display/celebrate the animal they managed to kill. If a butcher took a picture of themselves and a pig they'd just killed with the same intent, that would be very weird - that's the point.

The photographs express completely different things, and that is why Conor74's linked photograph isn't relevant to rubadub's point.

smash

dodderangler wrote: »

Well with my rifle they don't exactly get back up as it's a fox rifle but on rabbits it's great aswell.
Question: am I being cruel shooting land riddled with mixxy or should I let them suffer with it?

Myxomatosis is pretty much a self regulation for the rabbit population. But if you're hunting for food, although it won't make you sick, I wouldn't be eating a rabbit riddled with it.

ScumLord

osarusan wrote: »

Did you even read my post?

It' all about intent, and what the person was trying to express by being in the photograph.

For the woman in the OP, the intent is to display/celebrate the animal they managed to kill. If a butcher took a picture of themselves and a pig they'd just killed with the same intent, that would be very weird - that's the point.

The photographs express completely different things, and that is why Conor74's linked photograph isn't relevant to rubadub's point.

But killing an animal isn't a big deal to a butcher. A postman doesn't stand beside a door way taking a picture of him posting a letter with a smile on his face because it's not an event to him.

This woman is probably never going to get the opportunity to hunt and kill a giraffe again, it was a once in a lifetime event. We have people taking a photo of every meal they eat and posting it on facebook, then you give out that a person has taken a picture of a once in a lifetime event.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha!

It comes down to the assumed intent behind the smiles of people posing with dead animals!

You surely would not say it's pointless to suggest their may be motives for smiling other than the 2 identified. Perhaps both have the exact same reason, a satisfied "didn't I do well"?

"Didn't I do well?" For each photograph, what is it that you think the person wants the viewer to feel that have done well?

Perhaps you think the smiling butcher with a plate of meat wants the viewer to celebrate the fact that he has just killed the animal from which it came. I think he wants them to think the meat looks nice so they will go to his shop and buy some.

I am pretty comfortable with my assumptions as to the intent behind both photographs, and my argument as to why your comparison of both is not valid.

osarusan

ScumLord wrote: »

But killing an animal isn't a big deal to a butcher. A postman doesn't stand beside a door way taking a picture of him posting a letter with a smile on his face because it's not an event to him.

This woman is probably never going to get the opportunity to hunt and kill a giraffe again, it was a once in a lifetime event. We have people taking a photo of every meal they eat and posting it on facebook, then you give out that a person has taken a picture of a once in a lifetime event.

I never gave out about any of it.

The only point i have made is that i think Conor74's comparison ('but both are pictures of dead meat') is way too simplistic and not valid.

jimgoose

dodderangler wrote: »

Well with my rifle they don't exactly get back up as it's a fox rifle but on rabbits it's great aswell.
Question: am I being cruel shooting land riddled with mixxy or should I let them suffer with it?

Ma Deuce Browning FTW. :cool:

ScumLord

osarusan wrote: »

I never gave out about any of it.

The only point i have made is that i think Conor74's post and comparison is not valid.

I think it is valid, we would just rather not admit that its essentially the same thing having the butcher we visit smiling with a plate of cow parts as a hunter smiling beside the just killed animal. Both are happy and proud with their achievements. Both are benefiting from the death of an animal.

osarusan

ScumLord wrote: »

Both are happy and proud with their achievements.

If I talk to a hunter about the photo of her and a dead giraffe, and a butcher about a photo of him and a plate of meat, and ask them to explain why they wanted that photo taken, what impression they wanted to viewer to get, and what achievement they wanted people to recognise, do you think I'd get very similar answers?

Umaro

The perception from her smile is that she took great enjoyment from the act of killing.

The Corinthian

Umaro wrote: »

The perception from her smile is that she took great enjoyment from the act of killing.

She's also clearly thinking about muffins. It's written all over her face.

Anyone else what to share some perceptions with the group?

ohnonotgmail

The Corinthian wrote: »

She's also clearly thinking about muffins. It's written all over her face.

Anyone else what to share some perceptions with the group?

muffins?? nonsense. she's a Dairy Queen girl

the_syco

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

How did wildlife ever survive before humans became moral guardians of the planet

Like the Dodo, they went extinct.

smash wrote: »

Myxomatosis is pretty much a self regulation for the rabbit population.

Self regulation? o.0

The Corinthian

the_syco wrote: »

Self regulation? o.0

Myxomatosis was introduced to the Australian rabbit population by Bugs Bunny in 1938. He had originally intended to infect South America, but had taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque and ended up in Australia instead.

smash

the_syco wrote: »

Self regulation? o.0

Well it helps keep the population down because it eventually starts to wipe them out.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Well it helps keep the population down because it eventually starts to wipe them out.

And the 'self' bit?

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the 'self' bit?

That was just a typo. I was going to write that the rabbit population is pretty much self regulating because of Myxomatosis.

It's nature culling nature to protect nature.

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

That was just a typo. I was going to write that the rabbit population is pretty much self regulating because of Myxomatosis.

It's nature culling nature to protect nature.

Natures way of controlling that problem would be with predators, not allowing a disease to run rampant through the population. The predator can cherry pick the sick animals out of the population whereas the disease will take out entire populations, including the ones with genes that would be beneficial to pass on. It could lead to a dramatic decline in rabbit populations to the point the gene pool becomes shallow encouraging more disease in the population.

Junkyard Tom

ScumLord wrote: »

Hunting is about knowing your prey and it's weaknesses and then exploit that weakness.

Having a gun tends to help too.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

"Didn't I do well?" For each photograph, what is it that you think the person wants the viewer to feel that have done well?

Perhaps you think the smiling butcher with a plate of meat wants the viewer to celebrate the fact that he has just killed the animal from which it came. I think he wants them to think the meat looks nice so they will go to his shop and buy some.

I am pretty comfortable with my assumptions as to the intent behind both photographs, and my argument as to why your comparison of both is not valid.

I will bow to your expertise in analysing the reasons for the smiles of people who pose with dead animals, and I admire your confidence in saying your reasons are the only reasons and no other reasons are possible. I have not studied psychology or met the people in either photo.

Incidentally, I never suggested anything about the butcher celebrating. I actually suggested a different reason, that like the hunter both are just satisfied with matters. You have prescribed the only reasons for the smiles, you don't also have to make up arguments to get your point across the line!

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

That was just a typo.

Hmmm... Indeed...

I was going to write that the rabbit population is pretty much self regulating because of Myxomatosis.

It's nature culling nature to protect nature.

You do know that it was man that introduced to the rabbits' environment?

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

I have not studied psychology or met the people in either photo.

Once you go into the psychology of a person having their photo taken you'll probably find that most people will smile when they pose for a photo and if they don't someone will tell them to smile. It could easily be argued she was smiling for the camera rather than over what she did.

smash

ScumLord wrote: »

Natures way of controlling that problem would be with predators, not allowing a disease to run rampant through the population. The predator can cherry pick the sick animals out of the population whereas the disease will take out entire populations, including the ones with genes that would be beneficial to pass on. It could lead to a dramatic decline in rabbit populations to the point the gene pool becomes shallow encouraging more disease in the population.

They might be cute and cuddly (and tasty), but when you exit a pet shop they're just a pest. They destroy land and there's not enough predators to take them out.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You do know that it was man that introduced to the rabbits' environment?

? See, anyone can have a typo. But anyway... Introduced by man or not, it eventually makes it way into healthy populations and regulates their numbers. They'll die off and then be back again. Rinse and repeat.

ScumLord wrote: »

It could easily be argued she was smiling for the camera rather than over what she did.

It could be, but lets be realistic here: she was posing with her kill in the same way a fisherman will pose with his catch.

ohnonotgmail

[QUOTE=smash;95112865
? See, anyone can have a typo. But anyway... Introduced by man or not, it eventually makes it way into healthy populations and regulates their numbers. They'll die off and then be back again. Rinse and repeat.

.[/QUOTE]

except as a population control agent its benefits are short term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxomatosis#Use_as_a_population_control_agent

smash

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except as a population control agent its benefits are short term

I know, it's a rinse and repeat system like I stated. But these days even without human introduction you'll see it working it's way into populations as they expand.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

? See, anyone can have a typo.

A four-letter typo. Sure.

But anyway... Introduced by man or not, it eventually makes it way into healthy populations and regulates their numbers. They'll die off and then be back again. Rinse and repeat.

Myxomatosis was not "nature culling nature to protect nature", it was man culling nature to control a pest. The "it's part of nature now" is a is even less believable as the 'typo' defense.

ohnonotgmail

smash wrote: »

I know, it's a rinse and repeat system like I stated. But these days even without human introduction you'll see it working it's way into populations as they expand.

there is no repeat. the ones that survive and live to breed are not affected by the virus. you eventually end up with a population with natural immunity.

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

It could be, but lets be realistic here: she was posing with her kill in the same way a fisherman will pose with his catch.

So if she had an angry face in the photo this wouldn't be an issue?

NachoBusiness

Shows a lack of respect for the animal but sure nothing out of the ordinary there. Fisherman holding large swordfish is pretty much the same.

In fact, I'd say if hunters only did this with animals they hunted in the wild, then I would say that would be a hell of a lot more respect than the vast majority of animals that end up as food in our supermarkets ever get.

Umaro

The Corinthian wrote: »

She's also clearly thinking about muffins. It's written all over her face.

Anyone else what to share some perceptions with the group?

To quote yourself..

The Corinthian wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum.

Couldn't beat them so you joined them.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

A four-letter typo. Sure.

I've already stated what my original post was which contained the word in it. You've contributed pretty much fcuk all to the tread except to pick people's posts apart and wind people up.

ohnonotgmail

Umaro wrote: »

To quote yourself..




Couldn't beat them so you joined them.

the difference is that the corinthian knew he was posting nonsense.

smash

ScumLord wrote: »

So if she had an angry face in the photo this wouldn't be an issue?

It's not do with her face though really. It's to do with actions. There's more than one photo by the way.

smash

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the difference is that the corinthian knew he was posting nonsense.

Trolling then

ohnonotgmail

smash wrote: »

Trolling then

its called humour.

ScumLord

NachoBusiness wrote: »

In fact, I'd say if hunters only did this with animals they hunted in the wild, then I would say that would be a hell of a lot more respect than the vast majority of animals that end up as food in our supermarkets ever get.

I don't know that farming is more disrespectful to animals. Farmers are usually at the birth of each animal under their care. They raise them, feed them, get them treatment when their sick. I know that there are bad farmers out there but I think in Ireland at least most cows live pretty idyllic lives. I've seen farmers on the verge of crying over losing some sheep to foxes. I think farmers do care, they spend their lives with these animals, they depend on these animals for their livelihood.

I wouldn't say it's any more or less respect than a hunter would have for the animals they kill, it's a very different way of dealing with animals, that require different mindsets.

Galwayguy35

Clovis people deserved respect, anyone that faced down a mammoth with just spears had real courage, and the animal was killed for food.

ScumLord

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Clovis people deserved respect, anyone that faced down a mammoth with just spears had real courage, and the animal was killed for food.

They probably had much smarter ways of killing them rather than just killing them with spears. There are videos of African tribes hunting elephants with spears and it's a long drawn out affair, it's looks horrible and dangerous for the people doing the hunting.

But when you see the tribes that still do persistence hunting it shows that people in the distant past were much craftier about their hunting tactics. Unlike neanderthals that got up close and personal with their killing humans had a knack for killing at a distance, or killing using their in depth knowledge of how the animal behaves. It quite likely they set up mammoths so they didn't need to kill them using spears.

dodderangler

smash wrote: »

Well it helps keep the population down because it eventually starts to wipe them out.

Yes it does but it's a horrible slow death.

NachoBusiness

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know that farming is more disrespectful to animals. Farmers are usually at the birth of each animal under their care.

Well I deliberately said supermarkets rather than butchers as I was really referring to cheap meat and what in general the animals that end up as such tend to endure. Battery chickens, intensively raised pigs etc. I know given the choice I'd rather take my chances in the wild.

TwoShedsJackson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well first off it makes absolutely no difference to the animals why they are killed.

Can't find a link that isn't just recorded off a TV with a phone but this is a good excuse for the best bit in My Cousin Vinny:

darkpagandeath

dodderangler wrote: »

Yes it does but it's a horrible slow death.

You mean being eaten alive by lions or another predator ? Nature is cruel dark and survival of the fittest.

Takeshi_Kovacs

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know that farming is more disrespectful to animals. Farmers are usually at the birth of each animal under their care. They raise them, feed them, get them treatment when their sick. I know that there are bad farmers out there but I think in Ireland at least most cows live pretty idyllic lives. I've seen farmers on the verge of crying over losing some sheep to foxes. I think farmers do care, they spend their lives with these animals, they depend on these animals for their livelihood.

I wouldn't say it's any more or less respect than a hunter would have for the animals they kill, it's a very different way of dealing with animals, that require different mindsets.

I think the big issue is with factory farming, and not with small farmers who genuinely care for their animals.
Animals housed in their thousands in close quarters, receiving unnatural foodstuffs and administered large amounts of antibiotics, so that they don't die from being cramped so close together, is far more horrible than a hunter posting an image on facebook of a wild animal that lived its life pretty freely up to the point that it was shot, but i guess people want their cheap meat.

A lot of people dont realise that a lot of these animals being shot by hunters going over to Africa, are coming back from verge of extinction, because hunters pay a lot of money for these tags, and it is profitable then for these countries to ensure that there is healthy stable populations of these animals.

Kiwi in IE

The term she uses to describe herself 'Extreme Huntress' reminds me of the movie 'The Hostel'.