Quite a lot. How much would it take for me to attempt kicking the ass of someone killing a puppy for money? Not nearly as much.
I'm not going to be watching that video, as I suspect it's snuffy. Cruelty for money is nothing more than simple cruelty. Without extenuating circumstances (i.e., puppy has been just hit by a car and is in great pain), anyone who'd do this is just a shit. Those who claim they'd do it for money but not for free? Still shit. No huge analysis needed.
Meanwhile, these people likely would have no remorse after eating a hamburger or pork chops.
Ask a grizzled old farmer who's sent many an animal off to market and he'd probably go for it.
How much money would it take for you to kill a chicken with your bare hands? A mouse? A spider? A fly? Interesting how it gets easier the less anthropomorphic the animal is.
I once asked a work colleague - all hypothetical, of course - how much money he would need to be offered in order to cut off his own penis.
"One million?" I asked.
"No!"
"OK ... two million?"
For some reason, the absurdity of this encounter amused me no end.
This is about eating meat, then? Puppy = Cow?
*nods politely, moves on*
People kill human beings for money all the time. Are they more or less cruel than those who would kill a puppy? Would you be as likely to attempt kicking their ass?
Depends on the person. But I certainly might.
Anyway, if the majority is voting in favor of puppykilling for money, I'm going to bow out gracefully here, thanks.
viet cow
If the majority is voting for puppykilling (is that really one word?) for money, I'm not part of it. I'm just amazed by people who seem to value animal lives (some animals...usually the cute ones) more than humans.
I've seen people read through the first ten pages of a newspaper, skimming through stories of war, murder, death, carnage, etc...then when they read a story on page 11 about some guy abusing his dog, they get outraged. I don't understand the mindset.
humans are puppy terrorists--the innocent should not be persecuted and tortured, nor made to perform services under duress, such as "sit!" , or "lick this peanut butter off!"
lol...
O God, it's just a puppy...if it can get me lunch, I would kill it.
I mean, really, I eat cows all the time. A puppy is no more of an animal than a cow.
I would probably ask for like $100 just so that it's profitable. And I would drown it. No blood please.
I ate a puppy once. Tasted like chicken. But I normally don't eat anything that I couldn't kill myself. But in this case it was offered to me by a Vietnamese man who barely had money and still wanted to share this treat with me. Who am I to say: "No, puppies are cute and you don't eat them."
In rural Vietnam puppies roam around the houses and eat scraps, just as pigs do. And many people eat pigs, but no puppies. And pigs are very social and intelligent creatures too.
Mm, I've killed puppies too, or witnessed my brother doing so and I didn't stop him. When you live on a farm and your dog just birthed 11 puppies from an unknown father, you don't go to the vet to have them euthanized. You just take an axe and kill them. Fast, before you get attached to them. The two puppies we kept grew up pretty nice, but 11 of them? No way.
Does this makes me a cruel person?
To the people who created this "comedy sketch:"
From the Bard College Course List:
Course No.: FILM 201 A
Title: Introduction to the Moving Image: Video
Professor: Jacqueline Goss
Schedule: Tu 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm
Description: Introduction to the basic problems (technical and theoretical) related to film and/or electronic motion picture production.
The class is right there, guys. Go take it.
I'm at the head of the queue. Stand behind me, please.
how about with gloved hands?
Hard to believe that anyone would not take a billion dollars so that they could save human or animal lives on a large scale.
Then it is really just a matter of price.
If the puppy was from a shelter (doomed) then I'd kill it for a substantially less amount of money than a puppy living on its own, and a puppy who had a home, nah, its got a good life, no need to end that.
I'm with Loopy. That amount would be my hourly wage; the only way I'd do it is if I were working for the shelter and it was part of my job. I considered such a job once, but decided I probably wouldn't be able to handle it.
As far as the value of an animal's life going down as it's cuteness level goes down, it's unfortunate, but lots of people are that way. Thanfully, there are also quite a few people who view all lives as equally valuable. I know many people (myself included) who hate to kill a spider & will make every effort to put it outside instead.
Regarding people's diets, I've come to believe that people don't think as hard as they should about what they're eating. To a lot of people, especially we USAians, food is just what comes out of the box, from the restaurant's kitchen, or out of the grocery store. Origins are rarely questioned, which is helped quite a bit by the food industry itself. There's a lot to hide there, and those people are very adept at it. I'm sure Tyson doesn't want it to be common knowledge that at some of their plants, they use machines to raise, maintain, and even kill chickens. Had I not already decided to go veggie* before I learned that fact, I would have after. That's the most horriffic thing I've ever heard.
Thankfully, healthy eating has taken a strong foothold here, and more people are trying to improve their eating habits. We've still got a very long way to go, but it's a start.
Not totally veggie; I'll eat Neiman Ranch meat, and Whole Foods meat, because it's all humanely raised and organic.
Hereabouts it has Minda. I live not farabouts from you, and yes, eating vegetarian (vegan except I still indulge in my cheeses) is pretty easy here, as tofu and soy products are abundant, and other vegan-friendly things are abundant. But in other parts of the state, and I'm sure the country it isn't so easy. I visited my hometown recently, and found that I could not eat the foods I usually eat. No currey paste in the entire damned city (60,000 residents).
Did anyone actually watch the movie? I thought it was funny, and no, no puppies were killed. Thanks for the link, shawnj.
Yeah, I watched it. It was ok.
Thanks, shiny & squid - I watched about half of it (it's hard to listen to that kind of thing without being found out at work), and didn't see a single puppy. It was pretty funny to see the people squirm...
*SPOILER*
minda, about a month after the first interview, they track down the same people and present them with a puppy to "kill". Of course most of the people who said they could kill a puppy for money change their minds once they're staring into big brown puppy eyes. It's dark humor, but no more so than Mr. Burns singing "See My Vest" on The Simpsons. And absolutely no puppies are harmed at all.
***More Spoilage***
I think the second half of the sketch really makes it--and I don't just mean the over-sized novelty cheque. It makes me think there could be a whole series of 'would you' situations followed by being confronted by the reality of it--with an oversized novelty cheque of course. Naturally, I don't know if they could have as fun a song as "Dead Puppies" for these other philosophical conundrums.
And also, isn't this entirely a philosophical exercise? SideDish, aren't their animal cruelty laws in most states that would make this sort of canine killing a crime?
***End spoilage***
I couldn't do it. I also couldn't kill a cow to eat if I had to - that's what I pay a supermarket for. I can't even kill a spider, seriously. I have to take them outside in a glass. The most I can do is spray flyspray at flies, although sometimes I find it entertaining to try and catch flies with the vacuum cleaner.
I can understand the viewpoint of pretty much everyone in this thread though, although I can't imagine being in your position, mare, with all those puppies and having to kill them. I'm such a townie.
I wouldn't take money for killing a puppy with my bare hands, but I have no problem doing it for free - if it was suffering and no veterinary euthanasia was available.
I would take money to help though, but not to watch, that is enjoyment only.
/devil
This reminds me of an essay I read in an English class once entitled "I had to beat your cat to death with a pipe today," or something catchy like that.
It was a note to a former pet owner about how the writer had found their cat run over and how the writer had to put the cat out of its misery and how he felt about that. Did anyone else read it? I remember its tone of righteous anger.
well did you guys see the girl that was like "gimme $.50 and I'll kill it" and when they hit her back a month later, she literally pounced on the puppy...the guys had to tell her to "get your hands of my dog"...
She was evil! lol...
That's just scary... sociopaths get their beginnings hurting small animals before working their way up to, you know, attacking lonely old ladies with sticks and burning their houses down.
/blatant generalisation based on too many true-crime books
That's still scary, though.
rocket88: Why's it that surprising? Most of the dumber animals aren't anywhere near as objectionable as humans. I've never heard of a dog doing anything comparable to the Tuskgee Experiments.
rodgerd, but you've only known a few dogs, and probably don't look up much on dog history. Dogs have been around a long time.
We have some loon killing cats and putting their cut-in-half bodies back in the yards of the people whom they stole the cat from. Just a little extra thrill for this bastard knowing the owners will find them. The cops are taking it super-seriously for the reasons explained by Tracicle.
I tell you what though - if the neighbourhood catches up with this vindictive little prick, he's going to wish the cops got him first. People are absolutely incensed and appalled at the unmitigated malevolence of this sociopathic fuck.
People are absolutely incensed and appalled at the unmitigated malevolence of this sociopathic fuck.
People who don't give a second thought to the hundreds of cases of child abuse in their city every year. Not to take away from the sickness of the cat crime, but it's all about priorities.
This reminds me of a story I was told by a guy I was dating. He was driving along the road one day in Wisconsin and came along a deer that had been struck by a car. He killed the deer by braking it's neck with his bare hands. I got a hard-on when he told me that. It was so sexy -- compassionate and strong!
LOL - oops, 'breaking' it's neck.
rocket, if a person went around a neighborhood and punched every child they saw, the police would be involved, and the person arrested for an array of charges.
On the other hand, when a person punches their own child and someone sees it, the police are going to be called and the parent will face losing their child. Of course, there are neighborhoods where such a thing will go unpunished, because the general population there doesn't care. Mostly, though, such a thing would prompt many calls to the police.
When someone abuses their own animal, there are a lot of people out there who won't do anything about it. When someone does do something such as call the police, the abuser often doesn't face any consequences other than a (usually not large) fine and perhaps a court hearing.
"People are absolutely incensed and appalled at the unmitigated malevolence of this sociopathic fuck.
People who don't give a second thought to the hundreds of cases of child abuse in their city every year. Not to take away from the sickness of the cat crime, but it's all about priorities."
Says who? Why the assumption? I would say that people angered over the violence perpetrated on an animal would be very angry over the abuse of a child.
The priority is getting people to understand what an asshole thing it is to be mindlessly cruel. To an animal or a child.
I've done it for "free". I was doing volunteer work at the Humane Society, though. There were three puppies, maybe 2 months old, terminally ill from some disease I've forgotten the name of. Whatever it was had weakened them to the point were they couldn't move, but only whimper. I had to hold them still (and comfort them with pets) while the HS worker injected them with something (I forget what). It wasn't difficult to hold them still - even when they were being stuck with the needle they were still to weak to physically react; they just whimpered a little louder.
It seems I could have made my point a lot better with fewer words. Sorry about that - it's a touchy topic for me, and I have to watch how I say things because I can get a bit carried away. What I really meant to say was that I understand that there are awful things being done to children that must be stopped, and the system that's supposed to protect them isn't doing it's job well. But does that mean that because children are being abused, we should ignore animal cruelty?
People who don't give a second thought to the hundreds of cases of child abuse in their city every year.
Buh? Okay, I'll bite - how can you prove that?? That's a gratuitous generalisation.
For instance, in Australia and particularly here in Queensland, there is currently a HUGE public outcry about child abuse occuring in foster homes, and in the Catholic (and not-so-Catholic) church.
The hue and cry about these abuses easily eclipsed the outrage (equally vehement) about some kitten-killings (and torturings) earlier this year. People were rightly outraged, but there has been sustained and ongoing support for investigation and correction of systematic abuses committed past, and present.
i can't say what my own answer would be.
my immediate response would be "no amount of money, because my conscience can't be repaired" but when the hypocrisy of meat eating in general is brought up i falter.
i suppose if i were forced to kill the animals i eat in order to eat them, i would quickly become a vegetarian.
When my Uncle arrived at college the resident protesters were advertising that they were going to burn a dog alive in a courtyard to simulate the effects of napalm. Naturally people showed up to the meeting enraged they could be so cruel, to which the protesters responded something like, "Your upset we're going to do this to a dog but you don't care what we're doing to thousands in Vietnam?"
I don't think the previous comments were that people would more upset if the saw a child hurt than a dog, but that people hear so much about human suffering that they are either unable or unwilling to do anything about, that the only way they deal is growing alittle numb to it. Puppy vs. Children is a bad example, people would be more upset over a puppy mutilator than a adult mutilator.
okay... we've all established that we like animals. And threads that involve even slightly rude behaviour towards animals have been way too controversial, let alone outright violence.
But I don't think that anyone knows what they would really do. If you'd lost your job, been sleepless worrying about rent - or worse, how to feed your kids, then maybe you'd start thinking, it's the puppy or me. A puppy, however sweet, is not a sentient creature. If you were hungry, you might even eat it. This doesn't make you evil, or cruel, unless you tortured it while killing it.
Also, while I'd agree that people get up in arms when allegations of child abuse are raised - with the proverbial cry "Think of the children!" - I've noticed that they happily vote for people who cut welfare and condemn children to grinding poverty and homelessness. The failure to put 2 and 2 together continues to direct our society (single mothers on welfare are still mothers, often with young children who require fulltime care, and leaving them without support won't do their kids any good - just set them up for more poverty in the next generation). I think I would kill a puppy to stop a child from being homeless.
I honestly don't know how much money it would take for me to kill a puppy gratuitously....
Though I'd probably be quite unhappy to do it, I wouldn't have any real trouble killing a cow or a chicken for food, because I think, as an omnivore, that if I didn't have the stomach to kill the creature, I shouldn't be eating it.
Now puppies, according to my background and cultural paradigm... they ain't for eatin'. If they were, I'd probably not have much trouble killing one, and would probably do it for free if I needed to eat.
50 cent girl was awesome. You could almost fill in the blank after the first clip: "50 cents. No, I'm serious, 50 cents. LET'S GO, LET'S DO IT RIGHT NOW! RIGHT HERE!"
But I don't think that anyone knows what they would really do.
Those of us who have already killed puppies probably have a pretty good idea what we would really do.
I haven't killed puppies, but some of the other commenters have. And being a nurse, I've, uh, administered pain medication to terminally ill people where the propability of a fatal outcome from the medication was, um, extremely high.
And having done that, I think I know myself pretty well on the whole killing issue (not that I'm saying I've intentionally killed; but care of the terminally ill in the last hours of life involves some fine, complicated, lines... which tends to make one think a lot). For me, it would all depend on the circumstances. I would kill a terminally ill or injured puppy that was in pain for free if there was no one else to do it-- although it would be extremely, extremely difficult and would probably haunt me for life. I would not kill a well puppy for any amount of money, unless somehow my life or the life of another depended directly on the puppy-killing-money and there was no other way to earn it (which I don't imagine could ever happen in real life).
For me, its not completely about morality, though that enters into it. I do eat meat a couple times a week. Its more a visceral thing. Only a great moral need (to relieve the suffering of the puppy) would be enough to overcome my disgust at the act itself. Money would not be enough.
I don't think eating meat but not wanting to kill puppies is necessarily hypocritical. I think there is great survival value on the species level in revulsion at killing cute things, because it makes people less likely to kill their own annoying, bratty children.
I found 50 cent girl to be very interesting, and really wished they'd done some follow up questions with her, say, as originally devised by an FBI profiler.
atchafalaya: can you find out what exactly what the title of that piece was and where i might find it? The reason is that I wrote a play where a character recounts a situation somewhat like that, but involves a roadside accident--and was based on my own personal experience.
which brings us to...
PigAlien: Did we ever date?
I don't know, BearGuy, but if you've killed a deer with your bare hands, I'd be willing to give it a go... :) LOL are you hairy?
I once read a book about a ship's crew, some scientists, and an Inuit family who were marooned for months in the Arctic Ocean when the ship--an ice breaker--got stuck in ice and sank. Despite the fact that several of the men died of starvation, hypothermia, &c., the family's cat survived. They didn't just not eat the cat, but they fed it enough to survive. (Mind you, this wasn't some random cat, but a pet and a good luck symbol.)
I have a suspicion that 50-cent-girl wasn't as serious as she claimed to be. This is speculation, but she sounds like she's trying to imtimidate the interviewers since she knows it's all abstract. I mean, it's not like they have a real, live puppy and a blank chequehandful of pocket change with them.
I honestly don't know how much money it would take for me to kill a puppy gratuitously....
Hey, if you do it for money it ain't gratuitious.
True, Wolof... Rather than saying gratuitous, I would better have said needless.
Also, I don't think it's hypocritical to not want to kill a puppy if you eat meat, mainly because our social context defines puppies as companions and not livestock. I'm also strongly in favor of legislation and enforcement of laws which minimize the suffering of for-food animals during their lives and at the slaughterhouse.
minimize the suffering of for-food animals during their lives and at the slaughterhouse.
Absolutely, I would have no problem with killing the puppy for food, but "strangling it with my bare hands" would cause the animal to suffer and the meat wouldn't be as tasty. Better to kill it in halal fashion.
I should also note that some societies have viewed dogs as both companions and food as the need arises: various Native American tribes (mainly plains ones I believe)--and pragmatic Norwegians.
P.S. Full disclosure: I have eaten dog before. I will do so again.
krebs cycle - you are right, I should have qualified the statement with "until they've been in the situation."
I also agree that 50-cent girl was probably just seeing how far the other would go, rather than being completely serious. Which would make her like the filmmakers themselves.
As one who has wrung the neck of a squawking chicken for my dinner, I can tell you that the deed is far removed from the talk and the theory.
did you think you had the last word on this bluehorse?
i'll have to tell the tale of trying to shoot this nasty rooster that kept attacking me. alas, my shot was poor, he was only wounded, i felt bad and nursed him back to his previous glory...
and he attacked me again!
farm life does teach necessary perspectives on survival.
i thought, though, that the real issue here is not the gratuitious or unnessary aspect of killing, but will one do it for extraneous incentive.
some can kill when faced with the necessity. others would let themselves be killed before acting.
and then there's the grey area between the two.
fuyugare, that's wonderful...bananas!
it really is a good presentention of the conundrums of the grey zone. the perils of too much 'knowledge'.
/although they sorta lost me at being reborn as a space ship.
thanks.
blank chequehandful of pocket change with them.