So who's going to do it first?

**Wolf** · 28th July 2005, 09:19

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

That wasn't in Lumsden was it? I know a guy there that'd do that (Head of the local Pest Destruction Board).

Rukuhia area, just outside Hamilscum. Still can't believe that three guys with thirty six rounds of ammo between them all managed to miss with every single shot - obviously as the hare was slowing we were getting less accurate. Judging by the fact the guy jumped off the ute and grabbed it, it was pretty much reduced to a walk by the time we ran out of ammo.

**Phurrball** · 28th July 2005, 11:02

Originally Posted by Wolf

And how much discomfort is inflicted.

If they had, as Scumdog mentioned, blown the kittens brains out with a .22, I would have seen it as pointless and stupid. The fact they saw fit to torture the animals to death, I find sickening.

[...snip...]

Him, I'd hunt with again - he knows when to concede that the animal won.

Wolf, you hit the nail on the head and get the distinction between cruelty and mere stupidity (where Ixion's question of motive comes in) just right.

[On second thoughts, perhaps 'hit the target' is a more appropriate metaphor]

I have no moral qualms with ethical hunting of that nature.It is an entirely justified and defensible practise IMHO. Not all vegetarians are tree huggers with their heads in the clouds - it comes down to respecting the different choices of others, so long as they don't unjustifiably impinge on your legitimate freedoms or the legitimate rights of animals. The more activist vegans etc who carry some forms various direct action seem to struggle with the bigger picture. Some loopy once stole deer blood from an undergraduate immunology lab I was involved with! That was silly. I saw the blood collected; the deer was no more harmed than you or I having a blood test, and the same deer had to be bled again. A nett loss for that particiular animal's rights.

That said I have similar respect for dedicated über-vegans who can actually walk-the-walk, as well as talk-the-talk...

I just try and be an informed middle ground walker, without being a fence sitter.

[Disclaimer to any syntax/word choice pedants - I'm tired today. You get the general idea

.]

**Phurrball** · 28th July 2005, 11:03

Oh, BTW, where has LiasTZ gone?

**Wolf** · 28th July 2005, 11:34

Originally Posted by Phurrball

Oh, BTW, where has LiasTZ gone?

Outside for a cigarette break

**spudchucka** · 28th July 2005, 13:34

Originally Posted by Phurrball

Oh, BTW, where has LiasTZ gone?

Seems he's a little put out by some of the comments on his pussy video and has started handing out the red rep.

I stand by my comments though, anyone that thinks the slaughter, gutting and BBQ'ing of kittens should be videod for entertainment, in the way it was in that video, is SICK.

**Lou Girardin** · 28th July 2005, 15:11

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Seems he's a little put out by some of the comments on his pussy video and has started handing out the red rep.

I stand by my comments though, anyone that thinks the slaughter, gutting and BBQ'ing of kittens should be videod for entertainment, in the way it was in that video, is SICK.

Red rep my arse. He's lucky I don't set Clyde the killer Burmese on his sorry butt.

**Lias** · 28th July 2005, 16:40

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Seems he's a little put out by some of the comments on his pussy video and has started handing out the red rep.

You gave me red bling for posting it. I returned the favour *shrug* I didnt start handing it out, you did.

Originally Posted by Phurrball

Oh, BTW, where has LiasTZ gone?

/wave

**ManDownUnder** · 28th July 2005, 17:13

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Red rep my arse. He's lucky I don't set Clyde the killer Burmese on his sorry butt.

Kinda like Footrot Flats' Horse?

**Lou Girardin** · 28th July 2005, 17:26

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

Kinda like Footrot Flats' Horse?

Yeah, but smaller and with killers eyes.

**Beemer** · 28th July 2005, 23:18

[QUOTE=spudchucka]Seems he's a little put out by some of the comments on his pussy video and has started handing out the red rep.QUOTE]

Yeah, I got red rep for being a "stupid animal lover". I'm just glad he didn't put in any commas...

**Phurrball** · 29th July 2005, 13:03

[QUOTE=Beemer]

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Seems he's a little put out by some of the comments on his pussy video and has started handing out the red rep.QUOTE]

Yeah, I got red rep for being a "stupid animal lover". I'm just glad he didn't put in any commas...

THAT would have been an 'Eats, shoots and leaves' moment!

:

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Seems he's a little put out by some of the comments on his pussy video and has started handing out the red rep.

I stand by my comments though, anyone that thinks the slaughter, gutting and BBQ'ing of kittens should be videod for entertainment, in the way it was in that video, is SICK.

On to the serious stuff...

I haven't viewed the video. I don't want to. I don't need to be reminded just how sick some people are. I don't need to get wound up and angry on a Friday afternoon - I am picking up a 'new' lawnmower today, and I look forward to using it merrily in the weekend without knowing the details of what the sick farks in the video did to that cat.

What I have to say now is important. Without going into too much detail, I'm pretty sure that the video referred may fall foul of the FILMS, VIDEOS, AND PUBLICATIONS CLASSIFICATION ACT 1993.

There are some pretty heavy penalties available under this act. I think the idea of the act is that 'publication' is tacit approval of the illegal/sick acts portrayed in the 'publication'.

This may leave Kiwibiker open to legal liability, and also may leave LiasTZ open to liability under the same act. Unless LiasTZ has legal advice to the contrary, if I was him, I'd be pulling the file from this site (if he hasn't already done so), and deleting it from my hard drive ASAP.

(Probably also a good idea for anyone who downloaded it - although I'm sure most deleted it immediately anyway after one watch due to its sick nature.)

There is a bit of smut and filth peddled on this site from time to time, but i'm pretty sure it does not fall into the objectionable category.

This is a public forum, it pays to remember that when we put up anything potentially 'dodgy'

[Disclaimer - I ain't trying to be a killjoy - I appreciate dubious humour and smut as much as the next bloke. But there IS a line in the sand, and I suggest this video probably crosses it.]

Stop reading now if you want to skip the legalese...

Here's some of the most relevant bits of the act (See the legislation for yourself – click the wee plus by ‘F’ on the left to find it.)

FILMS, VIDEOS, AND PUBLICATIONS CLASSIFICATION ACT 1993

``Film'' means a cinematograph film, a video recording, and any other material record of visual moving images that is capable of being used for the subsequent display of those images; and includes any part of any film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film:

``Video recording'' means any disc, magnetic tape, or solid state recording device containing information by the use of which one or more series of visual images may be produced electronically and shown as a moving picture:

``Publication'' means—
…
[(d)a thing (including, but not limited to, a disc, or an electronic or computer file) on which is recorded or stored information that, by the use of a computer or other electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or shown as 1 or more (or a combination of 1 or more) images, representations, signs, statements, or words:]
…

3.Meaning of ``objectionable''—

(1)For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.
…

(2)A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
…

(f)Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.
…

/rant. Back to the law books I'm supposed to be reading.

Enjoy your weekend everybody.

**spudchucka** · 30th July 2005, 14:45

Originally Posted by LiasTZ

You gave me red bling for posting it. I returned the favour *shrug* I didnt start handing it out, you did.

/wave

So you are a sick prick and childish too.

**ManDownUnder** · 1st August 2005, 12:27

Originally Posted by Phurrball

...

(1)For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.
…

(2)A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
…

(f)Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.
…

/rant. Back to the law books I'm supposed to be reading.

Enjoy your weekend everybody.

I for one did view it - multiple times as mentioned.

Cruelty to an animal is depicted and I'll happily tell that to anyone. I'm not sure if what I saw is the "extreme cruelty" side of things, I can imagine doing something a lot worse (the cat did die within 20 seconds of the first blow to the head), but I'd still rank it towards that end of the spectrum.

LiasTZ - did you pull that video yet. I gotta admit I haven't checked.

[edit] nope - still there - Iasked Admins to take a look and pull it off if needed
MDU

**Lias** · 1st August 2005, 13:42

I already spoke to phurrball in PM's re this.

I'm not totally unfamiliar with the FVP Act, and I dont believe the video is in breach of it. The video's simply more shocking because its a cat (not an animal we associate with beign slaughtered and cooked). Think of it this way.. If it was a chicken having its head chopped off and being plucked instead of a cat having its head chopped off and being defurred, no-one would even be raising an eyebrow over it.

(2) A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes
of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote
or support,---
(a) The exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for
sexual purposes; or
(b) The use of violence or coercion to compel any person to
participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
(c) Sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
(d) The use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or
dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
(e) Bestiality; or
(f) Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme
cruelty.

IANAL, but I've never heard of 3.2.f being interpreted in any way OTHER in a sexual sense (IE Extreme BDSM, sexual torture etc), which hardly applies in this sense.

**ManDownUnder** · 1st August 2005, 13:56

Originally Posted by LiasTZ

I already spoke to phurrball in PM's re this.

I'm not totally unfamiliar with the FVP Act, and I dont believe the video is in breach of it. The video's simply more shocking because its a cat (not an animal we associate with beign slaughtered and cooked). Think of it this way.. If it was a chicken having its head chopped off and being plucked instead of a cat having its head chopped off and being defurred, no-one would even be raising an eyebrow over it.

IANAL, but I've never heard of 3.2.f being interpreted in any way OTHER in a sexual sense (IE Extreme BDSM, sexual torture etc), which hardly applies in this sense.

Good - so long and the Admins know about it - that's all good by me. Cheers

Re the cat v chicken - I disagree but for reasons already stated. I don't want to get drawn into the same argument again
MDU