Poll: Woman guts horse, takes pictures in it's carcass
- Thread starter Jedisolo75
- Start date
That shits messed up, but taking the pictures shouldn't be illegal, it might be sick, but it's still her right. Killing the horse on the other hand seems like it should be a fine, at least to me, that was uncalled for, and seems like it should qualify as animal abuse.
Oh I see, you're one of those people. In what world is extremely basic animal instinct even close to wisdom? Methinks you should lay down the book of fairy tales and pick up a science journal. Turns out those wise old owls aren't actually wise! They just have good eyes and like small animals a lot.Trezu said:
All the animals we kill in first world countries, with the exception of the rare instance of self-defense, we kill for pleasure.UrieHusky said:
OT: What a weird thing to want pictures of. Morally..... Its a fucking horse, I really don't care what they did to it.
Do you have any understanding of what a non-human predator would have done to that horse? If it was dead before it started getting eaten it would be considered lucky.Trezu said:
OT: what she did creeps me out, but that doesn't make it wrong.
It's horrible, disgusting, and I think that the woman is completely sick, but no, it should not be against the law. The animal was killed humanely, and that's that.
If we start outlawing everything that we find repulsive or distasteful, then where do we stop?
/edit
Just found this in the article, "... She posted on the Internet gory photos of herself naked inside a horse that she bought, shot, gutted, posed naked inside of, and ultimately ate."
It reads like she bought it for the sole purpose of killing it so as to model inside of it. While that might be legal, it's utterly fucking horrible, and completely depraved.
If we start outlawing everything that we find repulsive or distasteful, then where do we stop?
/edit
Just found this in the article, "... She posted on the Internet gory photos of herself naked inside a horse that she bought, shot, gutted, posed naked inside of, and ultimately ate."
It reads like she bought it for the sole purpose of killing it so as to model inside of it. While that might be legal, it's utterly fucking horrible, and completely depraved.
it not from what read it's not really a crime but
"Reached by phone yesterday Lottin refused to comment other than saying she doesn't understand what all the fuss is about and that the reason she did what she did was "just spontaneous.""
and it was influenced by star wars
"Lottin reportedly told investigators that they wanted to humanely kill the horse and eat it ? and she wanted to feel what it would be like to be inside the dead horse."
the animal was killed humanely to be eaten. ok no issues there
but want to feel what it's like inside a dead horse is strange
the reasoning for doing that is weird as hell; she must be crazy for that thought to even cross her mind and even crazier for actually doing it. but what ever it's her life and who am i to say see does not have a right to "feel what it would be like to be inside the dead horse" while nude as weird as it may be
"Reached by phone yesterday Lottin refused to comment other than saying she doesn't understand what all the fuss is about and that the reason she did what she did was "just spontaneous.""
and it was influenced by star wars
"Lottin reportedly told investigators that they wanted to humanely kill the horse and eat it ? and she wanted to feel what it would be like to be inside the dead horse."
the animal was killed humanely to be eaten. ok no issues there
but want to feel what it's like inside a dead horse is strange
the reasoning for doing that is weird as hell; she must be crazy for that thought to even cross her mind and even crazier for actually doing it. but what ever it's her life and who am i to say see does not have a right to "feel what it would be like to be inside the dead horse" while nude as weird as it may be
that is the way the internet worksbinnsyboy said:
Only problem is that the horse broke it's leg ( which it cant live from bc of it's digestive system keeping it standing) so it had to be put down, they did something pretty wierd but they also plan to cut it up for meat, I dont see why it should be criminal and it's not animal abuse if it's dead and there's a minor interruption to harvesting the meatDaystar Clarion said:
If a man were to kill another man, he should be punished for murder.
If a man were to kill another man and then chop him up and roll around in the bits, he should only be punished for murder. He should not be punished for having extremely bizarre hobbies.
These two crimes are equivalent in my opinion. A man has died.
/thread
If a man were to kill another man and then chop him up and roll around in the bits, he should only be punished for murder. He should not be punished for having extremely bizarre hobbies.
These two crimes are equivalent in my opinion. A man has died.
/thread
"Lottin reportedly told investigators that they wanted to humanely kill the horse and eat it - and she wanted to feel what it would be like to be inside the dead horse." <--from one the 3 articlesBlablahb said:
just to correct you it was not kill for fun but for food which makes a diffrence but it does not exuse the wanting to feel what it would be like to be inside the dead horse
on top of that the horse had apparently been scheduled to be euthanized any
the first part of the quote i have nothing agents at least they made good use of the meat instead of just throwing it out
but second part is weird as fuck so say the least and i can't understand how that can ever cross any one mind and then actually go though with it. i conclude they have to be crazy but i guess the horse was already dead so it really does not matter but then again i am not a animal rights person. in fact i think peta is a bunch of nut jobs almost as crazy if not crazier then this girl.
over all it seems legal to me but still very strange
A non human predator don't kill for joy and for jollies they do it for there own survival. At least a non human predator gives respect to a dead animal, sure they kill it violently but They do it for there survival not for sheer pride and jollies.BrassButtons said:
Wolves are a prime example of wisdom of basic animal instinct. They show nobility and wisdom,the kind old owls may strike a animal but do they do it for fun?Carsus Tyrell said:
No they do it for there survival not because they think it would be fun.
A wolf would only attack if u invaded there territory, attacked them they wouldn't attack you for sheer fun of it and jollies neither would they show there kill to there pack mates.