Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
In fairness, it would've been far from my thoughts had I seen it
Man marriers flying donkey?
but that picture is amazing.
This reminds me, I had a momentary hurst of Metro-based moral outrage this morning; what the fuck is wrong with drowning a squirrel that keeps eating/wrecking your stuff? NOTHING.
I think if he'd done it quicker it'd be ok. WHY DROWN IT THOUGH?!
You've caught the bugger in a trap. You open up the trap to deal a more humane fatal blow, it makes a break for it. Say it doesn't and you deliver the blow- how likely are you to do it in painlessly and instantly anyway? Not very.
It's a fucking rat with a bushy tail and a slightly sweeter face. I could drink loads of water and maintain a full bladder solely for the purpose of not pissing on a rat that I'd trapped and set on fire without anyone caring, so I just find it a bit odd that there's such consideration for an animal which carries parisites and diseases which, as well as threatening the young and elderly, wiped out an idigenous British species.
Drown them all, I say.
Mark E Smith?
I wouldn't drown them.
"This is terrible BUT..."
But I have better things to do with my day than get character assasinated by do gooders calling me racist or something. Like spread my germs round the office
It's a fucking BIRD table. Welcome to nature. It was eating stuff he put out for the birds? Well boo-fucking-hoo, I'm sure the birds found food elsewhere: it's what they're good at.
That's not really of any consequence, Theo.
Not liking a creature isn't a good enough reason to kill it. It eating stuff in your garden isn't either.
It is an unjustifiable animal killing so it's not really a surprise he'd be prosecuted if they got wind of it.
You're patently wrong that it's an 'unjustifiable animal killing', as the legal issue wasn't whether or not he was right to kill it. It's how he did it, and I'd contest the suggested humane means aren't especially practical.
A mouse infestation in your house has all kinds of implications for your health and the health of the building. Even then deciding to kill all the mice would come second to trying out more humane methods.
In this instance we're talking about a squirrel that wouldn't even have been there if this guy hadn't been putting food out for the birds. This is analogous to feeding stray cats by leaving food out and then killing a badger or fox that comes in to eat it.
I don't know about the other humane methods. I'd guess snapping its neck would be a pretty way to kill the thing but I simply don't see how you can possibly claim there's a justification there unless this bird feed was the only thing keeping some endangered bird life alive, which I severely doubt.
You're just conflating two similar but different strands of an argument. It is perfectly justifiable (in the legal sense. I can't be bothered to argue ethics or morals, they don't intereste me here) to kill certain categories of animal simply because you don't like their presence in your personal space.
I think it's naive of you to say the squirrel wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for the bird food as they're wild, roaming pests, but I do understand what your point is. I just don't agree with your analogy - badgers are not a good comparison because they're not the same class of animal (they're protected legally) and you certainly can 'dispose' of foxes if you like, so long as you use appropriate means.
It's how practical the suggested humane means are that I'd debate. Do you know how much it costs to take a captured pest to a vet to have put down? Or how awkward it is for an untrained hand to simply 'snap' an animal's neck? tbh, most of your argument is misplaced here as I'm not concerned about the rights and wrongs killing animals that could be considered pests.
though I'd argue that having laws for animal deaths (outside of working animals) is almost completely lacking in any strong basis outside of bleeding heart liberalism and morals. So in a sense a legal argument does come down to a moral one.
Legally there's no reason not to keep animals in terrible battery farming conditions for their entire lives.
That said, £1500 seems a lot of money for killing a squirrel.
its not only how he did it but that it was a wild animal which wasn't considered vermin being pointlessly killed.
and you decided that the feed wasn't for ducks you wouldn't be justified in killing it would you?
Both have said it was the means and not the act that was the issue. If they're wrong then so am I, and I offer sincere apologies.
They seem to enjoy the experience. Surely this is just a natural extension of that?
Not only do they put a downer on my day, but all the jokes are completely witless.
Cheer up lad.
The Russian themselves clearly not as keen... http://www.wimp.com/russianhero/
I have some lovely Ukranian friends (yes I also have lots of black friends, ok, before I am beaten to it, hahaha), but I have yet to be convinced that the Russians are anything other than half-witted barbarians. This is a horrific, terrible thing to do and can only come from utter fecklessness or murderous inegligence (this is not a proper legal term actually, but I may make it into one.) MASSIVE sense of humour failure from me. How utterly terrifying it must have been for the animal as the ground/ water got closer and closer. I would actually kill the people concerned if I ever came across them. I would shoot them with my gun.
I don't reckon it did
I'm sure I've heard a donkey scream. Sadly.
haven't the Spaniards been lugging donkeys out of church windows for years?
(donkey related). I think it's the one and only time I've raised a hand to somebody other than in self-defence/ sport.
I didn't realise the Spanish were at it too! :( This one woman campaign is going to be too much.....
Teachers drunk >>>> children death interface. FOR FUCKS SAKE
And what with the whole raping and piliging neighbouring countries.
Russia can get to fuck.
But surely that was an ignorant attitude that we now regret / have learned from.
Russia no doubt, in it's many different forms throughout history, did the same thing? (I admit this is speculation not fact).
Surely being a super power in the modern world it should be setting an example?
I want to do some vigilante action on this one. Anybody fancy a holiday to Russia with me?
I am NOT 'Teresa, London' in the comments, ok. Just a bit of a coincidence.
I am still trying to figure out what they were advertising? Those crazy Russians. Though my favourite comment has to be:
"The donkey screamed and children cried,"
"The stunt – intended to attract people into parasailing at a private beach club"
You wouldn't want to have been under it if it was taking a dump, would you?
someone talking about the things that matter.
Screaming in fear? That sounds a bit anthropomorphic. I'd accept that a donkey can feel distress or pain, but fear seems a bit of a cognitive leap for the poor beast.
And in any case, if it was screaming, it might have been loving it, like a rollercoaster.
And was what motivated their survival instinct?
I'm normally wrong though.
That's never happened before
"Screaming in fear" just sounded a bit weird.
but they'll need to get a lower hatch put in for my pugs.