The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is this entertainment?  (Read 6120 times)

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Is this entertainment?
« on: 28/11/2009 16:05:11 »
Before I begin, I will openly admit that I am prejudiced against the ‘I’m a Celebrity, Get me out of here’ programme, screened on ITV. I do not consider this, or other such programmes to be ‘entertainment’. Unfortunately, my wife likes to watch it, so while it is on, I turn my attention to something (anything) else.

I object to the sickening terror individuals are subjected to. No, I do not refer to the so-called ‘celebrities’, they know exactly what is in store for them when they sign the contracts to appear in this mind numbing utter tripe, I refer to the animals. I am not very keen on cockroaches, spiders and other such creepy-crawly’s, but they are animals all the same. As are the rats, snakes, frogs and crocodiles regularly abused on this programme. There is no doubt in my mind, that these unfortunate animals are far more terrified during their ordeal with these ‘has-beens’ than the alleged humans.

I was, however, glad that I was half watching the broadcast yesterday (27/11/09) to witness the final straw in my disgust at this complete and utter rubbish. So incensed was I, that I immediately sent an email to the ITV to complain.

In what they call a ‘bush tucker trial’ two ‘celebrities’ had to find keys hidden inside the bodies of fish. A box filled with, I would guess, more than 100 dead fish was rummaged through and the gizzards of the fish unceremoniously pulled out on to the jungle floor.

Whether these fish were caught for this purpose or bought from a fish market is irrelevant. These were once living animals. Had they been caught and used as food, I would have no objections, but to have died for the purpose of ‘entertainment’ I find sickening and abhorrent.


 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #1 on: 28/11/2009 18:06:11 »
I agree with ewe Don.


It seems to be entertaining for quite a few when ewe see the rankings but the welfare of the animals involved have been discussed in this home too.

It does seem sick if indeed the fish were slaughtered for the prime use of the bush tucker trial.....I am wondering if they just bought a ' job lot ' down the market though !..in any case, who ever they were purchased/obtained from would need to re-stock so it's as good as having them slaughtered for the show !
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #2 on: 28/11/2009 19:26:02 »
I agree and think it is terrible! I hate shows like that and do not understand how they can slide in under the radar as humane  as you said especially seeing that they do not seem to be eaten....

 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #3 on: 28/11/2009 20:30:44 »
I have been thinking very much the same about those sorts of shows. "Fear Factor" and such, in which insects/worms/etc. often get eaten alive by the contestants. There is a reason though that they never use cute, furry, cuddly animals. Just slimy, gross, disgusting animals that you can get away with mistreating. All too often they are not even seen as "animals". I used to have pet rats but most people still find them gross. And it is completely besides the point whether they are gross or disgusting (whatever that is anyways). They are animals that live or lived and I thought we have advanced beyond this. But maybe not. Animals that are liked have rights - the others don't. Entertainment rules!  >:(

I did not see the show you refer to but I can imagine that there are a certain number of fish that need to be thrown out at the end of the day at a market since they went bad or cannot be sold the next day for legal reasons. If you collect those for a week and use them, well, better than fresh, edible fish. But you are right, one should not play with food. That's what my Mom told me and I still remember. But she was a child in Germany in WWII and she experienced real need for food. To many who enjoy those shows today have forgotten or never known.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #4 on: 01/12/2009 07:40:01 »
I'm not trying to defend these shows, since I don't like them either, but maybe the fish were caught for consumption but were not sold in time, and could therefore only be used for either entertainment or garbage container filling.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #5 on: 01/12/2009 09:22:05 »
Admitted, this is a possibility Nizzle, but I rather doubt it. This 'game', I'm sure would have been planned well in advance, so the producers would have had to ensure they could get the supply they needed.

But even if it were the case that this was a 'spur of the moment' idea and the fish were residual stock from a fish market, it would be far better to turn the fish into fertilizer than to 'play games' with them. I think this sends out an entirely inappropriate signal and is beyond defence.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #6 on: 01/12/2009 19:21:45 »
Don

Yeah, I agree these shows should make provisions to productively utilize the residue they create. Perhaps they do. However, eating a big wormy larva IS using the resource for food! :P
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #7 on: 06/12/2009 02:28:41 »
... the rats, snakes, frogs and crocodiles regularly abused on this programme ...
 So incensed was I, that I immediately sent an email to the ITV to complain.

RSPCA agrees with you Don ...

Quote
Gino D'Acampo, the winner of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!, and fellow contestant Stuart Manning are facing criminal charges for animal cruelty after cooking and eating a rat on the TV programme.

D'Acampo, 33, said in the show's video diary room: "I saw one of these rats running around. I got a knife, I got its throat, I picked it up."

The group, including 30-year-old Manning, ate the rat and enjoyed the meal.

Chief Inspector David Oshannessy, from the RSPCA in New South Wales, said it was not acceptable that an animal had been killed as part of a performance.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5ilCh-eejz1109m4szdqGjjq-kjQQ
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #8 on: 06/12/2009 03:19:38 »
Quote
Chief Inspector David Oshannessy, from the RSPCA in New South Wales, said it was not acceptable that an animal had been killed as part of a performance.

And yet, according to the RSPCA and most of society, it's okay to kill it if you want to eat it.

Institutionalised, rationalised cruelty is still cruelty :(
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #9 on: 06/12/2009 09:35:25 »
I do not find the killing, cooking and eating of a rat a bad thing per se, but I do object to it being done for entertainment.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #10 on: 06/12/2009 13:00:06 »
The act is the same, and both of the reasons for killing the animal are unnecessary - food, and entertainment, can be obtained via cruelty-free means.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #11 on: 10/12/2009 01:16:02 »
Gloves and Dave - I am in complete sympathy with your reticence to eat Giant Grubs, Rats, or Rabbits etc for entertainment purposes. As a child I hunted and killed rats, sparrows and other 'pests' on the farm with my bb gun. For instance, I would sit on a barn beam in the dark waiting for a rat to get close, then pop him between the eyes.  It worked many times.

However, over time I began to differentiate between threats [rats, rabid racoons etc] and sport [unfortunately accumulated sparrows in the chicken coop] and gave up the sport hunt. I had no particular moral or ethical rational other then it was unnecessary. Its not that I believe Giant Grubs or Sparrows or Red Wing Black Birds are sentient beings worthy of Animal Rights. In fact, I do not believe that is the case.

It just seemed gratuitous excess. Like shooting Bison from a moving train. The Bison are oblivious, as are sparrows and giant grubs; none of this rises to manslaughter or murder. So I do not see much moral culpability in anyone who eats a giant grub for TV ratings, or shoots Red Wing Black Birds for the hell of it.  However, it is entirely gratuitous, and as such violates a general HUMAN admonition to be moderate in all things.

And as further elaboration, it seems entirely incumbent upon humans to actually exterminate animal populations that are in and of themselves excessive.  The great example is the 'mad cow' diseased deer populations of the Upper Midwest. Diseased humans may have human rights, but diseased animal populations do not.

But I digress. Time for one last beer and then to rest.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #12 on: 10/12/2009 02:47:25 »
If your basis is "Is it necessary?" then the answer to the question of eating animal flesh or products is "No". The cruelty you inflicted in the past was not necessary, & neither is the institutionalised cruelty felt by nearly all farm animals today. The only difference, perhaps, is that you do not feel personally responsible for it. I shall try to explain why I believe this is the wrong attitude further on..

Murder is not wrong to the individual murdered. After someone is dead, it is nothing to them. Murder is wrong because you're removing the potential for a creature to feel, i.e pleasure and pain, and it is the ultimate symbolic act saying "look, I have taken away your right to walk this Earth!" as well as the damage to family it causes.

Humans have an arrogant view of themselves in the context of nature, & I blame it mostly on religious tradition rather than anything close to scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, scientific ideas have been used before (& are currently!) to defend a cruel status quo rather than challenge it.

In the case of the food industry, I abstain from buying or using goods from all methods I believe to be cruel to animals, including honey, eggs & dairy, leather.. I realised that whether I was financially supporting killing of creatures capable of feeling or killing them myself made no real difference except in one I would feel terrible because of proximity, & in the other it would be out of sight & therefore would not make me feel terrible. I decided, once I had that insight, that I could no longer consider myself a good person if I continued to increase demand for meat, dairy etc.. so I figured out how to make myself feel for animals I didn't know, to imagine their suffering daily, in order to emotionally reinforce that belief. I also stopped seeing food as primarily a source of pleasure, without consequences: I realised my health, the environment, and not just animals were suffering from an omnivore diet. Leading to veganism.

One of the biggest fantasies the general public has is concerning animal welfare. Even in free range conditions, the chickens are denied access to mates. Ask yourself: would I like to be put into this position?

The way this argument works is simple. That animal did not choose to be in the position it's in & nor did you. You could've easily been born into that creature's body. For this reason it's wildly unjust to treat a creature badly for what it is, or deny it access to what it would've had normally.

I don't think the idea of broad animal rights should be particularly controversial. Dogs, cats, guinea pigs.. these aren't particularly clever animals, they didn't really do particularly well evolutionarily, they have nothing to their name except that we like them. I do not think liking an animal should be the main prerequisite for treating it well. It's just as wrong to harm a chicken as it is a dog or cat. Yet, somehow, we have managed to convince ourselves that it is morally different, at least when it comes to food. Vivisection is a whole other story..

It makes me laugh when Westerners balk at the idea of the Japanese killing dolphins, or when an illegal whaling ship is caught and there is moral outrage, or finding the Chinese eating cat meat shocking. I guess Hindus have the same anger about us killing cows. The only consistently moral position is to be vegan.

I still have compassion & understanding for omnivores though, & I certainly do not hate them. I hate the act, not the person. One act or belief does not a person make. I still think most people strive to be good - we are very effectively taught not to care about and/or believe that farm animals are treated badly.

We should all be outraged at murder, exploitation & slavery, no matter which species, race, gender..
« Last Edit: 10/12/2009 04:07:49 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #13 on: 18/12/2009 22:19:18 »
Foxes - You wrote: "Murder is not wrong to the individual murdered." This is an interesting perspective. I assume an attempted but unsuccessful murder would be wrong to the individual. But there is a converse to this when we consider, for instance, cows raised for food.

All the cows I have ever known had a pretty good life right up to the last few days. Early on suckling from mom. Then grazing obliviously under the sun in lush green pasture, well watered. Shelter available in bad weather, readily available medical care. Fed like royalty the last few weeks. Then KAPOOF - hamburger. The argument is these animals would never have had any of that good life if no one was willing to eat them at the end. They simply would never have lived at all.

Many humans have long and prolonged and difficult deaths. Far less 'humane' end then the cows. And the cows did not need to struggle for existence since they were well cared for their entire lives, and they never experienced a decline. I don't see a whole lot of cruelty in this story.

PS: Free range chickens prohibited from mating. Have you ever seen two chickens mate? It is not like, well, connubial bliss to the female. And male chickens to not need to kill one another to rape the female. They get all the nookie they can take. Although these days I believe the female chickens get artificially inseminated. Probably a bit less traumatic for the poor hen.

Still, in the old days farmers did not keep large numbers of cocks on the walk in the yard. There is a reason cock fighting is illegal.
« Last Edit: 18/12/2009 22:29:51 by litespeed »
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Is this entertainment?
« Reply #14 on: 19/12/2009 18:48:28 »
Quote
Foxes - You wrote: "Murder is not wrong to the individual murdered." This is an interesting perspective. I assume an attempted but unsuccessful murder would be wrong to the individual. But there is a converse to this when we consider, for instance, cows raised for food.

Subjectively, yes. You cannot wrong dead flesh, not even human dead flesh. You can wrong those around the animal by successfully killing it.

The murder is, however, wrong from an objective point of view. Once an animal is dead, it doesn't matter whether it was killed by a human hand or natures; it is dead, it cannot feel the pain anymore or know injustice. The wrongfulness of the act comes from the fact that you're preventing the innocent animal from feeling anything further where it could've without your intervention - in other words, you are not recognising it's inherent right to exist.

Quote
All the cows I have ever known had a pretty good life right up to the last few days. Early on suckling from mom. Then grazing obliviously under the sun in lush green pasture, well watered. Shelter available in bad weather, readily available medical care. Fed like royalty the last few weeks. Then KAPOOF - hamburger. The argument is these animals would never have had any of that good life if no one was willing to eat them at the end. They simply would never have lived at all.

Then you've known some comparatively fortunate cows.

So, once you I've given you a good life, I own your life & can choose to end it at any moment on a whim or for profit? Ask yourself why that is right.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is this entertainment?
« Reply #14 on: 19/12/2009 18:48:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums