http://news.yahoo.com/wranglers-hobbit-animals-died-unsafe-farm-084335908.html
QuoteAnimal wranglers involved in the making of "The Hobbit" movie trilogy say the production company is responsible for the deaths of up to 27 animals, largely because they were kept at a farm filled with bluffs, sinkholes and other "death traps."
The American Humane Association, which is overseeing animal welfare on the films, says no animals were harmed during the actual filming. But it also says the wranglers' complaints highlight shortcomings in its oversight system, which monitors film sets but not the facilities where the animals are housed and trained.
A spokesman for trilogy director Peter Jackson on Monday acknowledged that horses, goats, chickens and one sheep died at the farm near Wellington where about 150 animals were housed for the movies, but he said some of the deaths were from natural causes.
The spokesman, Matt Dravitzki, agreed that the deaths of two horses were avoidable, and said the production company moved quickly to improve conditions after they died.
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," the first movie in the planned $500 million trilogy, is scheduled to launch with a red-carpet premiere Nov. 28 in Wellington and will open at theaters in the U.S. and around the world in December. The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says it's planning protests at the premieres in New Zealand, the U.S. and the U.K.
The Associated Press spoke to four wranglers who said the farm near Wellington was unsuitable for horses because it was peppered with bluffs, sinkholes and broken-down fencing. They said they repeatedly raised concerns about the farm with their superiors and the production company, owned by Warner Bros., but it continued to be used. They say they want their story aired publicly now to prevent similar deaths in the future.
One wrangler said that over time he buried three horses, as well as about six goats, six sheep and a dozen chickens. The wranglers say two more horses suffered severe injuries but survived.
Wrangler Chris Langridge said he was hired as a horse trainer in November 2010, overseeing 50 or so horses, but immediately became concerned that the farm was full of "death traps." He said he tried to fill in some of the sinkholes, made by underground streams, and even brought in his own fences to keep the horses away from the most dangerous areas. Ultimately, he said, it was an impossible task.
He said horses run at speeds of up to 30 mph and need to be housed on flat land: "It's just a no-brainer."
The first horse to die, he said, was a miniature named Rainbow.
"When I arrived at work in the morning, the pony was still alive but his back was broken. He'd come off a bank at speed and crash-landed," Langridge said. "He was in a bad state."
Rainbow, who had been slated for use as a hobbit horse, was euthanized. A week later, a horse named Doofus got caught in some fencing and sliced open its leg. That horse survived, but Langridge said he'd had enough.
He and his wife, Lynn, who was also working as a wrangler, said they quit in February 2011. The following month, they wrote an email to Brigitte Yorke, the Hobbit trilogy's unit production manager, outlining their concerns.
Chris Langridge said he responded to Yorke's request for more information but never received a reply after that.
Wrangler Johnny Smythe said that soon after Langridge left, a horse named Claire was found dead, its head submerged in a stream after it fell over a bluff. After that, he said, the horses were put in stables, where a third horse died.
Smythe said no autopsy was performed on the horse, which was named Zeppelin. Veterinary records say the horse died of natural causes, from a burst blood vessel, but Smythe said the horse was bloated and its intestines were full of a yellow liquid; he believes it died of digestive problems caused by new feed.
Smythe said the six goats and six sheep he buried died after falling into sinkholes, contracting worms or getting new feed after the grass was eaten. He said the chickens were often left out of their enclosure and that a dozen were mauled to death by dogs on two separate occasions.
Smythe said he was fired in October 2011 after arguing with his boss about the treatment of the animals.
A fourth wrangler, who didn't want to be named because she feared it could jeopardize her future employment in the industry, said another horse, Molly, got caught in a fence and ripped her leg open, suffering permanent injuries.
Dravitzki, the spokesman for Peter Jackson, said the production company reacted swiftly after the first two horses died, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading housing and stable facilities in early 2011.
"We do know those deaths were avoidable and we took steps to make sure it didn't happen again," he said.
Dravitzki said Zeppelin died of a burst blood vessel and that he knew only of three goats, one sheep and about eight chickens that had died aside from that. He said two of the goats died in a cold snap but the third, like the sheep, was old and had likely died of natural causes. He said the chicken maulings were the result of careless staff oversight.
The American Humane Association said in its report on "An Unexpected Journey" that it investigated the farm at the production company's request. Dravitzki said the company contacted the AHA after Smythe alleged mistreatment of animals.
Mark Stubis, an association spokesman, said it investigated the farm in August 2011, months after the first deaths.
"We made safety recommendations to the animals' living areas. The production company followed our recommendations and upgraded fence and farm housing, among other things," the group said.
Dravitzki said the company had already made many of the recommended changes by the time the AHA made them.
Stubis said the association acknowledges that what happens off-set remains a blind spot in its oversight.
"We would love to be able to monitor the training of animals and the housing of animals," Stubis said. "It's something we are looking into. We want to make sure the animals are treated well all the time."
Dravitzki questioned the timing of the allegations with the premiere so close but said the producers are investigating all the claims "and are attempting to speak with all parties involved to establish the truth."
He said the company no longer leases the farm and has no animals left on the property. He said he didn't know if animals will be needed for future filming in the trilogy, but added that Jackson himself adopted three of the pigs used.
Hollywood has made animal welfare a stated priority for years.
In March, HBO canceled the horse racing series "Luck" after three thoroughbred horses died during production. The network said it canceled the show because it could not guarantee against future accidents.
This is news why ... ? :huh:
Because entertainment lead to the deaths of nearly 30 animals?
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 10:10:03 AM
Because entertainment lead to the deaths of nearly 30 animals?
The death toll from Thanksgiving is far higher! :ph34r:
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:19:05 AM
The death toll from Thanksgiving is far higher! :ph34r:
:mellow:
Clever. *golf clap* Oh so clever.
The question from my perspective, garbon, is what will happen, if anything? Obviously (to most), it's a shitty situation, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable when these movies bring so much money in to the country. And I can't see Peter Jackson really giving too rats' asses over it.
I don't know - I mean it seems like they'd need to expand the protections that they have for animals while on set - to while being held for set.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:19:05 AM
The death toll from Thanksgiving is far higher! :ph34r:
:mellow:
Clever. *golf clap* Oh so clever.
The question from my perspective, garbon, is what will happen, if anything? Obviously (to most), it's a shitty situation, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable when these movies bring so much money in to the country. And I can't see Peter Jackson really giving too rats' asses over it.
The shitty situation "allegations" appear to be mostly petty-ante.
Dogs killed some chickens? Sheep fall into sinkholes or get worms? :zzz
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:43:18 AM
The shitty situation "allegations" appear to be mostly petty-ante.
Dogs killed some chickens? Sheep fall into sinkholes or get worms? :zzz
Yeah, horses with broken backs, no big deal. Get my movie and my popcorn!
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:19:05 AM
The death toll from Thanksgiving is far higher! :ph34r:
The question from my perspective, garbon, is what will happen, if anything? Obviously (to most), it's a shitty situation, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable when these movies bring so much money in to the country. And I can't see Peter Jackson really giving too rats' asses over it.
I'm not entirely sure that he should give a rat's ass, frankly. The only reason this is in the news is because it involves animals being used in a movie. I suspect that these animals had better living conditions that lots of animals on regular, working farms. Take this bit, for example:
QuoteHe said horses run at speeds of up to 30 mph and need to be housed on flat land: "It's just a no-brainer."
Well, I've seen lots of horses on working farms that had quite steep hillsides. Not so much around here, where the land is generally flat, or even in WV, where there's not much flat land but also not that many farms, but in southwest Virginia, yeah, a lot. Sure, you can (and should) fix broken fences, but it's not like bulldozing the mountain flat or moving the farm from Virginia to Kansas are realistic options.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:43:18 AM
The shitty situation "allegations" appear to be mostly petty-ante.
Dogs killed some chickens? Sheep fall into sinkholes or get worms? :zzz
Um, 30 animals dead while under the care and handling of a movie production is not "petty-ante" when any decent farmer would be able to take better care of them, and in fact, the animal handlers attempted to do better but were met with push back by the production.
Not to mention that many of those "petty-ante" reasons were preventable, such as putting chickens away at night, treating all animals for worms, not putting the animals where there are sinkholes, and making sure that horses are pastured in relatively flat fenced-in areas.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:43:18 AM
The shitty situation "allegations" appear to be mostly petty-ante.
Dogs killed some chickens? Sheep fall into sinkholes or get worms? :zzz
Um, 30 animals dead while under the care and handling of a movie production is not "petty-ante" when any decent farmer would be able to take better care of them, and in fact, the animal handlers attempted to do better but were met with push back by the production.
Not to mention that many of those "petty-ante" reasons were preventable, such as putting chickens away at night, treating all animals for worms, not putting the animals where there are sinkholes, and making sure that horses are pastured in relatively flat fenced-in areas.
It's not news when a dog kills some chickens on a farm in New Zealand. It's just not. :lol:
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2012, 10:51:20 AM
I'm not entirely sure that he should give a rat's ass, frankly. The only reason this is in the news is because it involves animals being used in a movie. I suspect that these animals had better living conditions that lots of animals on regular, working farms. Take this bit, for example:
QuoteHe said horses run at speeds of up to 30 mph and need to be housed on flat land: "It's just a no-brainer."
Well, I've seen lots of horses on working farms that had quite steep hillsides. Not so much around here, where the land is generally flat, or even in WV, where there's not much flat land but also not that many farms, but in southwest Virginia, yeah, a lot. Sure, you can (and should) fix broken fences, but it's not like bulldozing the mountain flat or moving the farm from Virginia to Kansas are realistic options.
There have been multiple cases of charges of animal cruelty in our area for horses being kept in similar situations. Barbed wire fencing, uneven terrain that caused multiple injuries, etc. Chickens being eaten by dogs aren't uncommon, but most farmers do a better job of caring for their animals. Animals dying from worms - if it happens with regularity - will bring in the animal rescue to find out what's going on and why, if for no other reason than to verify the health and safety of the farm workers as much as the animals.
When you have a farm that has killed 30 animals over the course of a year, people will notice and the authorities will be notified. Often, charges will be filed.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:55:37 AM
It's not news when a dog kills some chickens on a farm in New Zealand. It's just not. :lol:
You're right, and if that was all that happened, then this would be a non-story. It is not, however, all that's happened, nor are they the only animals killed.
Glad you're finding some amusement in this. It's so hilarious, really. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 10:45:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:43:18 AM
The shitty situation "allegations" appear to be mostly petty-ante.
Dogs killed some chickens? Sheep fall into sinkholes or get worms? :zzz
Yeah, horses with broken backs, no big deal. Get my movie and my popcorn!
It walked off a fucking cliff! It's not like they deliberately injured the horse for the film. The horse hurt itself. I could understand this coming from a bleeding heart liberal, but a shill for the GOP who worked in the pharmaceutical industry? Please.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2012, 10:51:20 AM
I'm not entirely sure that he should give a rat's ass, frankly. The only reason this is in the news is because it involves animals being used in a movie. I suspect that these animals had better living conditions that lots of animals on regular, working farms. Take this bit, for example:
QuoteHe said horses run at speeds of up to 30 mph and need to be housed on flat land: "It's just a no-brainer."
Well, I've seen lots of horses on working farms that had quite steep hillsides. Not so much around here, where the land is generally flat, or even in WV, where there's not much flat land but also not that many farms, but in southwest Virginia, yeah, a lot. Sure, you can (and should) fix broken fences, but it's not like bulldozing the mountain flat or moving the farm from Virginia to Kansas are realistic options.
There have been multiple cases of charges of animal cruelty in our area for horses being kept in similar situations. Barbed wire fencing, uneven terrain that caused multiple injuries, etc.
Ok, again, what the heck the farmer supposed to do about the fact that the land isn't flat?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:57:29 AM
You're right, and if that was all that happened, then this would be a non-story. It is not, however, all that's happened, nor are they the only animals killed.
Yeah, I forgot about the sheep made ill by new feed and injured by sinkholes. And the horses hurt by uneven ground.
QuoteGlad you're finding some amusement in this. It's so hilarious, really. :mellow:
Glad you have found something
truly important to be concerned about - like animal safety practices affecting a handful of animals on the other side of the world. :mellow:
As I said - it is not *news*.
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2012, 11:02:17 AM
Ok, again, what the heck the farmer supposed to do about the fact that the land isn't flat?
Not have horses in those paddocks? Not have horses if they can't find a place that's safe for them?
I don't, in general, think that uneven terrain isn't safe for horses. Just look at where the wild ponies in the western states run. However, if you've got them penned in where there are dangerous ravines, that's just assinine. Having horses - who have notoriously weak ankles and legs - in a paddock with known sink holes seems really stupid, especially when one is renting the farm and could likely have found something better. It seems, from the article, that the production company just didn't want to bother until more noise was made about what was going on.
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2012, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2012, 10:51:20 AM
I'm not entirely sure that he should give a rat's ass, frankly. The only reason this is in the news is because it involves animals being used in a movie. I suspect that these animals had better living conditions that lots of animals on regular, working farms. Take this bit, for example:
QuoteHe said horses run at speeds of up to 30 mph and need to be housed on flat land: "It's just a no-brainer."
Well, I've seen lots of horses on working farms that had quite steep hillsides. Not so much around here, where the land is generally flat, or even in WV, where there's not much flat land but also not that many farms, but in southwest Virginia, yeah, a lot. Sure, you can (and should) fix broken fences, but it's not like bulldozing the mountain flat or moving the farm from Virginia to Kansas are realistic options.
There have been multiple cases of charges of animal cruelty in our area for horses being kept in similar situations. Barbed wire fencing, uneven terrain that caused multiple injuries, etc.
Ok, again, what the heck the farmer supposed to do about the fact that the land isn't flat?
Odd given what the production company said:
Quote"We do know those deaths were avoidable and we took steps to make sure it didn't happen again," he said.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 11:04:10 AM
As I said - it is not *news*.
And that attitude ensures that more animals will die unnecessarily for our entertainment.
If 30 people died you wouldn't be so upset.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:20:15 AM
If 30 people died you wouldn't be so upset.
I'd be upset if Malthus was saying that it was no big deal that 30 people died unnecessarily.
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:16:13 AM
Odd given what the production company said:
Quote"We do know those deaths were avoidable and we took steps to make sure it didn't happen again," he said.
Yeah, but that's just one of those things you have to say, because the Meris of the world will whine and cry otherwise.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:20:15 AM
If 30 people died you wouldn't be so upset.
I'd be upset if Malthus was saying that it was no big deal that 30 people died unnecessarily.
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
No you wouldn't. People die all the time. We post videos of it on You tube and laugh.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:20:15 AM
If 30 people died you wouldn't be so upset.
I'd be upset if Malthus was saying that it was no big deal that 30 people died unnecessarily.
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
Didn't we all have a good laugh when that ferry sank in Egypt?
You're the worst.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:28:21 AM
No you wouldn't. People die all the time. We post videos of it on You tube and laugh.
It is true people die all the time. I don't recall watching any videos of people dying on youtube and then laughing. I also don't recall times where we said 30 people dying was not newsworthy.
Of course, not really sure what this has to do with anything as clearly animals aren't people.
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2012, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:20:15 AM
If 30 people died you wouldn't be so upset.
I'd be upset if Malthus was saying that it was no big deal that 30 people died unnecessarily.
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
Didn't we all have a good laugh when that ferry sank in Egypt?
You're the worst.
I don't remember laughing about that as I don't really thinking people dying is particularly funny. I do remember several people being callous which lead to us losing posters. What does that prove? :unsure:
Didn't lose you, did we?
Also, Neil, your best example stems from what like 6 years ago?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:32:04 AM
Didn't lose you, did we?
I'm of sterner stuff. Not sure what that has to do with this article and me posting it - as I've already said. ;)
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:28:21 AM
No you wouldn't. People die all the time. We post videos of it on You tube and laugh.
It is true people die all the time. I don't recall watching any videos of people dying on youtube and then laughing. I also don't recall times where we said 30 people dying was not newsworthy.
Of course, not really sure what this has to do with anything as clearly animals aren't people.
Fuck, we had one last week. Israelis knocked out a Hamas guy. Laughs and good cheer was had by all.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:28:21 AM
No you wouldn't. People die all the time. We post videos of it on You tube and laugh.
It is true people die all the time. I don't recall watching any videos of people dying on youtube and then laughing. I also don't recall times where we said 30 people dying was not newsworthy.
Of course, not really sure what this has to do with anything as clearly animals aren't people.
Fuck, we had one last week. Israelis knocked out a Hamas guy. Laughs and good cheer was had by all.
I didn't see it, else I would have been disappointed. Still not sure that's the same as laughing about 30 people dying or proves I wouldn't be upset if we said 30 people dying isn't news.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:32:05 AM
Also, Neil, your best example stems from what like 6 years ago?
It stands out in my memory, because it was so funny. There's always Darwin-award-type stuff that gets a laugh.
At any rate, animals owe us their lives. If they are to die for our entertainment, that's a lot better than the meaningless deaths that they would have had to undergo in the wild. We feed them, we shelter them, and so they will die for us when we want it to be that way. We won' torture them, because we're better than that, but we will kill them. Anything else is PETA-lunacy, and anyone who subscribes to PETA-lunacy needs to kill themselves today.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
This. I'm not crying over these animals, but that doesn't mean that I think what happened was jim-dandy, either. The callous "who gives a shit" from Malthus says more about him than it does about how news-worthy this is, imo.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:17:14 AM
And that attitude ensures that more animals will die unnecessarily for our entertainment.
This is implying a bit of maliciousness that isn't there. They were not murdered as part of the movie, they died by incompetence on the part of the production. People need to be held responsible but I do not see how our entertainment was served somehow like we are watching Roman Gladiators killing captive Lions.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
The question from my perspective, garbon, is what will happen, if anything? Obviously (to most), it's a shitty situation, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable when these movies bring so much money in to the country. And I can't see Peter Jackson really giving too rats' asses over it.
Oh I am sure he gives a great deal of rats' asses about it. And if doesn't now he probably will after the lawsuits.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
This. I'm not crying over these animals, but that doesn't mean that I think what happened was jim-dandy, either. The callous "who gives a shit" from Malthus says more about him than it does about how news-worthy this is, imo.
And the weeping and gnashing of teeth that you're doing says a lot about you. You're the reason that women should never have gotten the vote: Your soft, soft heart.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2012, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
The question from my perspective, garbon, is what will happen, if anything? Obviously (to most), it's a shitty situation, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable when these movies bring so much money in to the country. And I can't see Peter Jackson really giving too rats' asses over it.
Oh I am sure he gives a great deal of rats' asses about it. And if doesn't now he probably will after the lawsuits.
I would imagine that the lawsuits will be quite reasonable towards him. After all, the man is half the economy of New Zealand, and the other half is the slaughter of sheep.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
This. I'm not crying over these animals, but that doesn't mean that I think what happened was jim-dandy, either. The callous "who gives a shit" from Malthus says more about him than it does about how news-worthy this is, imo.
The fact that you are concerned about 30 animals that died on a farm in New Zealand while thousands die every day in the US says a lot about you.
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2012, 11:49:31 AM
I would imagine that the lawsuits will be quite reasonable towards him. After all, the man is half the economy of New Zealand, and the other half is the slaughter of sheep.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. It's a shitty situation, but I can't imagine that much will happen. Peter Jackson is the source of a huge chunk of the New Zealand economy. Even NZ PETA folks would tread carefully with him, I'd guess.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:51:37 AM
The fact that you are concerned about 30 animals that died on a farm in New Zealand while thousands die every day in the US says a lot about you.
Unfortunately, the wrong ones continue to live.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:51:37 AM
The fact that you are concerned about 30 animals that died on a farm in New Zealand while thousands die every day in the US says a lot about you.
Unfortunately, the wrong ones continue to live.
Which animals would you prefer be killed?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:51:37 AM
The fact that you are concerned about 30 animals that died on a farm in New Zealand while thousands die every day in the US says a lot about you.
Unfortunately, the wrong ones continue to live.
It does get tiresome when he tries to argue with something that you didn't say or think. :D
Meh, harmless compared to the intentional on-camera killing of animals in 1980s Amazon cannibal movies.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:51:37 AM
The fact that you are concerned about 30 animals that died on a farm in New Zealand while thousands die every day in the US says a lot about you.
Hell, in the US we kill over one million chickens
every hour of every day. We kill over 9,000,000,000 a year. The death of a dozen chickens overseas is not news. The deaths of the horses might be more newsworthy, but, again, on average 3.5 horses die racing in the US
every day. In the grand scheme of what humans do to animals, these 30 deaths are really, really small potatoes.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
This. I'm not crying over these animals, but that doesn't mean that I think what happened was jim-dandy, either. The callous "who gives a shit" from Malthus says more about him than it does about how news-worthy this is, imo.
So you're just a different shade of "who gives a shit" from Malthus, then.
Cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs
Wow, that is some serious non news news right there.
Animals died somewhere, some of which was due to human incompetence?
No shit? Really? WOW I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT EVER HAPPENED!
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
This. I'm not crying over these animals, but that doesn't mean that I think what happened was jim-dandy, either. The callous "who gives a shit" from Malthus says more about him than it does about how news-worthy this is, imo.
Bullshit.
I said this
wasn't news, not that I don't give a shit about animals or that I thought this was "jim dandy".
Who pissed in your cornflakes this AM?
I'd like to know why some people are beating around the bush. Just say "garbon don't post shit like this anymore" or better yet - ignore it. ;)
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
I'd like to know why some people are beating around the bush. Just say "garbon don't post shit like this anymore" or better yet - ignore it. ;)
Don't sweat it, bro. Your heart is in the right place. It's not your problem that others' aren't.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
This. I'm not crying over these animals, but that doesn't mean that I think what happened was jim-dandy, either. The callous "who gives a shit" from Malthus says more about him than it does about how news-worthy this is, imo.
Bullshit.
I said this wasn't news, not that I don't give a shit about animals or that I thought this was "jim dandy".
Who pissed in your cornflakes this AM?
Has someone hacked your account ? ; normally our so polite and fun. :(
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Otherwise, I wasn't particularly upset when posting this article. I thought it akin to some of the 'badly behaved humans with animals' articles that Seedy has posted.
This. I'm not crying over these animals, but that doesn't mean that I think what happened was jim-dandy, either. The callous "who gives a shit" from Malthus says more about him than it does about how news-worthy this is, imo.
Bullshit.
I said this wasn't news, not that I don't give a shit about animals or that I thought this was "jim dandy".
Who pissed in your cornflakes this AM?
Has someone hacked your account ? ; normally our so polite and fun. :(
WTF? Are you guys trolling me? I'm not the one being labelled "callous" or that I "don't give a shit" about animals.
I'm merely saying this is not news. And it isn't.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:45:09 PM
I'm merely saying this is not news. And it isn't.
In what sense? After all, it is something that happened, that some segment of the population cares about and was reported on by a major news outlet (AP).
Now you might say it isn't worthy of being reported on - but I'm not sure where that gets us. I guess AP should report on said things anymore?
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 02:47:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:45:09 PM
I'm merely saying this is not news. And it isn't.
In what sense? After all, it is something that happened, that some segment of the population cares about and was reported on by a major news outlet (AP).
Now you might say it isn't worthy of being reported on - but I'm not sure where that gets us. I guess AP should report on said things anymore?
It isn't news because stuff like this doesn't raise a significant concern. The only reason it's being reported is because of the big-name draw of the movie, not because it is a serious animal-rights issue.
It is along the lines of "Celebrity X, who starred in the Hobbit, had menstrual cramps!". Can one say "that isn't news" without thereby insulting all women in general, and Meri in particular, who instantly takes the position you are saying menstrual cramps aren't important in general you callous bastard, and by extention you don't care about women's health, which says alot about you, etc. etc.? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:56:51 PM
It isn't news because stuff like this doesn't raise a significant concern. The only reason it's being reported is because of the big-name draw of the movie, not because it is a serious animal-rights issue.
It is along the lines of "Celebrity X, who starred in the Hobbit, had menstrual cramps!". Can one say "that isn't news" without thereby insulting all women in general, and Meri in particular, who instantly takes the position you are saying menstrual cramps aren't important in general you callous bastard, and by extention you don't care about women's health, which says alot about you, etc. etc.? :hmm:
:lol:
So, basically, you've decided that it's not news, and so anyone who says otherwise is being an extremist? You've made it very clear that you don't consider this worthy of your notice, so why are you still in this thread? I don't get that. Except that you've made it your business to make sure that those of us who actually feel that this story is worthy of our attention know your opinion, as if we should care.
Don't, now, get offended when you're called on your callous attitude ("lol! Dogs ate chickens!! Who the fuck cares??"). You don't get it both ways, Malthus. You made light of the whole situation because you didn't deem it worthy of your notice. When called on it, you suddenly get all offended for being called callous.
For the record, I'm not in tears over these animals. I think it's a waste, and yeah, I think it's pretty shitty that it happened. I also think that given who was involved, that nothing will end up happening about it, which is, to me, what really makes it newsworthy. I don't really care if you agree, regardless of how much you keep wanting to ram your opinion on it down my throat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
I'd like to know why some people are beating around the bush. Just say "garbon don't post shit like this anymore" or better yet - ignore it. ;)
Don't sweat it, bro. Your heart is in the right place. It's not your problem that others' aren't.
LOL KISS OF DEATH
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:04:50 PM
:lol:
So, basically, you've decided that it's not news, and so anyone who says otherwise is being an extremist? You've made it very clear that you don't consider this worthy of your notice, so why are you still in this thread? I don't get that. Except that you've made it your business to make sure that those of us who actually feel that this story is worthy of our attention know your opinion, as if we should care.
I guess you missed the fact that other posters, such as garbon, are asking my opinion. If you don't care, then please feel free to, you know, not respond.
Face it Meri - you flew off the handle and acted all huffy and sanctimonious. Over nothing. But please do continue. In fact, why not call
Berkut out while you are at it?
QuoteDon't, now, get offended when you're called on your callous attitude ("lol! Dogs ate chickens!! Who the fuck cares??"). You don't get it both ways, Malthus. You made light of the whole situation because you didn't deem it worthy of your notice. When called on it, you suddenly get all offended for being called callous.
I made light of the situation as news. No doubt each animal death is a tragedy, but these particular ones are not more significant than others.
QuoteFor the record, I'm not in tears over these animals. I think it's a waste, and yeah, I think it's pretty shitty that it happened. I also think that given who was involved, that nothing will end up happening about it, which is, to me, what really makes it newsworthy. I don't really care if you agree, regardless of how much you keep wanting to ram your opinion on it down my throat.
[Emphasis added]
You are wrong and evidently have not actually read the article before emoting - no surprise there. In actual fact, remedial steps
were taken. Which is an additional reason why this is
not news.
From the article in the OP:
QuoteThe American Humane Association said in its report on "An Unexpected Journey" that it investigated the farm at the production company's request. Dravitzki said the company contacted the AHA after Smythe alleged mistreatment of animals.
Mark Stubis, an association spokesman, said it investigated the farm in August 2011, months after the first deaths.
"We made safety recommendations to the animals' living areas. The production company followed our recommendations and upgraded fence and farm housing, among other things," the group said.
Dravitzki said the company had already made many of the recommended changes by the time the AHA made them.
In short, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 03:13:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:12:52 PMLOL KISS OF DEATH
:huh:
It's in capitals, on the internet that's code for "I don't know what I'm talking about, but assume if I say it loud enough, I'll drown out other opinions"
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
Face it Meri - you flew off the handle and acted all huffy and sanctimonious. Over nothing. But please do continue. In fact, why not call Berkut out while you are at it?
*sighs* You really do think far too highly of yourself. You read what you wanted to read into what I posted. Yeah, the production company should have handled it far better, and yeah, they should be held responsible for the animals' deaths. I don't think that the senseless death of 30 animals is something to shrug off. Nonetheless, I also don't expect anything to come of it. I pointed out that if it happened around here, the authorities would be called in and likely tickets would be written. I said - repeatedly - that I thought it was a shitty situation but that I didn't expect anything to come of it because of who was involved and where it took place. How that's huffy and sanctimonious is beyond me, but hey, you read it in whatever way you feel like.
As for Berk, I'd already made it clear that I disagreed with you on the topic. Why belabor it by saying the same to Berk? If he cared about my opinion, which I doubt he does, he would have commented to me directly when I disagreed with you. He didn't, so I assume he couldn't care less what I think on the topic. Why bother at that point?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 10:19:05 AM
The death toll from Thanksgiving is far higher! :ph34r:
:mellow:
Clever. *golf clap* Oh so clever.
The question from my perspective, garbon, is what will happen, if anything? Obviously (to most), it's a shitty situation, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable when these movies bring so much money in to the country. And I can't see Peter Jackson really giving too rats' asses over it.
Cochroaches and spiders have better protection than most human workers in the US. I don't think other countries should be held to that standard.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
QuoteFor the record, I'm not in tears over these animals. I think it's a waste, and yeah, I think it's pretty shitty that it happened. I also think that given who was involved, that nothing will end up happening about it, which is, to me, what really makes it newsworthy. I don't really care if you agree, regardless of how much you keep wanting to ram your opinion on it down my throat.
[Emphasis added]
You are wrong and evidently have not actually read the article before emoting - no surprise there. In actual fact, remedial steps were taken. Which is an additional reason why this is not news.
From the article in the OP:
QuoteThe American Humane Association said in its report on "An Unexpected Journey" that it investigated the farm at the production company's request. Dravitzki said the company contacted the AHA after Smythe alleged mistreatment of animals.
Mark Stubis, an association spokesman, said it investigated the farm in August 2011, months after the first deaths.
"We made safety recommendations to the animals' living areas. The production company followed our recommendations and upgraded fence and farm housing, among other things," the group said.
Dravitzki said the company had already made many of the recommended changes by the time the AHA made them.
In short, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
I did read the article, and I wasn't making up my own facts. With the death of 30 animals, imo, citations should have been levied, and I think if it were anyone else, they would have. The changes were made after several people told them that the situation was dangerous for the animals, and in fact, quit their jobs rather than be involved in the organization.
As I said, you don't agree, and that's fine. I don't particularly care.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:23:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
Face it Meri - you flew off the handle and acted all huffy and sanctimonious. Over nothing. But please do continue. In fact, why not call Berkut out while you are at it?
*sighs* You really do think far too highly of yourself. You read what you wanted to read into what I posted. Yeah, the production company should have handled it far better, and yeah, they should be held responsible for the animals' deaths. I don't think that the senseless death of 30 animals is something to shrug off. Nonetheless, I also don't expect anything to come of it. I pointed out that if it happened around here, the authorities would be called in and likely tickets would be written. I said - repeatedly - that I thought it was a shitty situation but that I didn't expect anything to come of it because of who was involved and where it took place. How that's huffy and sanctimonious is beyond me, but hey, you read it in whatever way you feel like.
As for Berk, I'd already made it clear that I disagreed with you on the topic. Why belabor it by saying the same to Berk? If he cared about my opinion, which I doubt he does, he would have commented to me directly when I disagreed with you. He didn't, so I assume he couldn't care less what I think on the topic. Why bother at that point?
Once again, you are simply wrong on the facts, and at this point you are being willfully obtuse in not acknowledging that remedial measures *were* in fact taken - as I pointed out (and you ignored).
So, by your own stated criteria of what makes this story "newsworthy", it isn't newsworthy. :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 03:30:13 PM
Cochroaches and spiders have better protection than most human workers in the US. I don't think other countries should be held to that standard.
Okay, Quebec.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 03:13:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:12:52 PMLOL KISS OF DEATH
:huh:
I guess I have to spell it out for you mooks :rolleyes:
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
Once again, you are simply wrong on the facts, and at this point you are being willfully obtuse in not acknowledging that remedial measures *were* in fact taken - as I pointed out (and you ignored).
So, by your own stated criteria of what makes this story "newsworthy", it isn't newsworthy. :hmm:
:lol:
You edited your post while I was writing my response, and somehow that's me being willfully obtuse. :rolleyes:
Whatever, Malthus. I say that it's worth a news story. Don't care if you agree or not.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:45:09 PM
I'm merely saying this is not news. And it isn't.
That is pretty damn callous. When did you stop giving a shit about animals. You've changed man.
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
That Puma on your avatar's team logo? That's the only one your children's children will ever know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
That Puma on your avatar's team logo? That's the only one your children's children will ever know.
Cool. Cuz I'd rather not have one of them attacking my kids.
But funny you should say that-- they were both at the zoo down there a couple days ago and saw, among other things, pumas.
Side-note about Argentine zoo exhibits, and I know this only sounds funny from an American perspective, but they include white-tailed deer and gray squirrels :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
That Puma on your avatar's team logo? That's the only one your children's children will ever know.
That's what civilization is.
So how's this for news?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kitten-lincoln-statue-rescue-145728309.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fblogs%2Fthesideshow%2Fkitten-abe.jpg&hash=ea5c150d4f6b5be588c5f63125a9d107da993279)
QuoteKitten trapped inside Lincoln statue for three days rescued
In a story so heartwarming it was practically made for Thanksgiving week, a stray kitten that became stuck inside a statue of Abraham Lincoln for three days has been rescued.
Authorities in Clermont, Fla., say they aren't sure how the 3-week-old kitten, whose muffled meows could be heard by staffers at the Presidents Hall of Fame, managed to get into the replica Lincoln Memorial.
"I don't see how a little kitten could have gotten up there," Humane Society spokesman Daniel Davis told WKMG-TV in Orlando. "It can't crawl up there."
Local fire officials were forced to drill a hole at the top of the statue, and a firefighter was lowered inside to retrieve the tiny feline.
The kitten—fittingly named Abe—was treated for dehydration but is expected to make a full recovery, according to WKMG. And when he does, John Zweifel, the museum's curator, is hoping to adopt him.
That's also not news. Those are stories that they replaced the news with so that people who can't think (primarily women, but also gays and other mental defectives) would tune in.
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
That Puma on your avatar's team logo? That's the only one your children's children will ever know.
Cool. Cuz I'd rather not have one of them attacking my kids.
Then go shoot one of your neighbors instead. They're a bigger threat to your kids than an almost extinct species of cat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:59:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
That Puma on your avatar's team logo? That's the only one your children's children will ever know.
Cool. Cuz I'd rather not have one of them attacking my kids.
Then go shoot one of your neighbors instead. They're a bigger threat to your kids than an almost extinct species of cat.
Wiki shows them listed in Least Concern. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:02:21 PM
Wiki shows them listed in Least Concern. :unsure:
Depends on the species. Just ask the American Eastern Cougar. Oh, wait. You can't. There aren't any anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:59:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
That Puma on your avatar's team logo? That's the only one your children's children will ever know.
Cool. Cuz I'd rather not have one of them attacking my kids.
Then go shoot one of your neighbors instead. They're a bigger threat to your kids than an almost extinct species of cat.
They are, but only because the woods behind my house is not crawling with predators thanks to civilization ;)
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 03:30:13 PM
Cochroaches and spiders have better protection than most human workers in the US. I don't think other countries should be held to that standard.
Okay, Quebec.
actually, I got that from an newspiece posted here. About the porn industry in California... ;)
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PMI guess I have to spell it out for you mooks :rolleyes:
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
Oh.
Yeah, I got that.
It's just that that's so stupid I was hoping you meant something else.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 03:30:13 PM
Cochroaches and spiders have better protection than most human workers in the US. I don't think other countries should be held to that standard.
Okay, Quebec.
actually, I got that from an newspiece posted here. About the porn industry in California... ;)
You mean the one where they are required to use protection? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
That Puma on your avatar's team logo? That's the only one your children's children will ever know.
Cool. Cuz I'd rather not have one of them attacking my kids.
But funny you should say that-- they were both at the zoo down there a couple days ago and saw, among other things, pumas.
Side-note about Argentine zoo exhibits, and I know this only sounds funny from an American perspective, but they include white-tailed deer and gray squirrels :lol:
Oh, is that what that avatar is? I thought it was some combination of Sweden and the United Arab Republic.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 02:02:06 PM
Wow, that is some serious non news news right there.
Animals died somewhere, some of which was due to human incompetence?
No shit? Really? WOW I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT EVER HAPPENED!
I think the animals should be faulted as well. Walking off a cliff is pretty incompetent.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 04:48:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 03:35:29 PMI guess I have to spell it out for you mooks :rolleyes:
Seedy complimenting you in a thread about supposed animal abuse is a sign that you're on the wrong side.
Oh.
Yeah, I got that.
It's just that that's so stupid I was hoping you meant something else.
Be more clear next time.
I care deeply.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:08:29 PM
I care deeply.
:hug:
I :wub: you, Berk, but I don't agree with you. :hug:
I bet animals in the wild walk off cliffs and stuff and die painful deaths.
In fact, I think there are some parts of the country where wild animals actually live in places with clifss and mountains and caves and other dangerous places, and the humans don't even fucking put up fences or anything for them.
Also, I think sometimes the animals grow so desperate for the care they are not getting from the humans around, that theya ctually fucking eat each other.
I know, it seems difficult to imagine, but I saw it on youtube, so it must be true.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:11:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:08:29 PM
I care deeply.
Just not about animals.
Only about the ones I own.
Except Chloe. She keeps throwing up all over the place and even though she is NOT my cat, apparently I have to drag out the fucking steam cleaner and clean it up myself for some damn reason.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:13:30 PM
I bet animals in the wild walk off cliffs and stuff and die painful deaths.
In fact, I think there are some parts of the country where wild animals actually live in places with clifss and mountains and caves and other dangerous places, and the humans don't even fucking put up fences or anything for them.
Also, I think sometimes the animals grow so desperate for the care they are not getting from the humans around, that theya ctually fucking eat each other.
I know, it seems difficult to imagine, but I saw it on youtube, so it must be true.
Let's not have fire departments either, because people have died from fire for countless centuries, and yet we're still here.
Animals don't pay property tax.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:14:33 PM
Except Chloe. She keeps throwing up all over the place and even though she is NOT my cat, apparently I have to drag out the fucking steam cleaner and clean it up myself for some damn reason.
Probably reads your posts.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 05:19:58 PM
Animals don't pay property tax.
Many people don't pay that either. I don't.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 05:19:58 PM
Animals don't pay property tax.
Most are squatters and unemployable.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:20:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:14:33 PM
Except Chloe. She keeps throwing up all over the place and even though she is NOT my cat, apparently I have to drag out the fucking steam cleaner and clean it up myself for some damn reason.
Probably reads your posts.
I am impressed at how hard you are willing to post on Languish to save the animals.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:05:20 PMBe more clear next time.
Make a better point next time.
It was a salient point. You're just too anti-me* to see it.
*meaning opposite of me
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:50:39 PM
I am impressed at how hard you are willing to post on Languish to save the animals.
I put my money where my mouth is, and my time.
I washed and sterilized 120 dog food and water bowls this morning. Shame you're not close enough to get one shoved up your ass.
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:52:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:05:20 PMBe more clear next time.
Make a better point next time.
It was a salient point. You're just too anti-me* to see it.
*meaning opposite of me
Shake hands, and develop a new power source? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 06:00:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:52:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:05:20 PMBe more clear next time.
Make a better point next time.
It was a salient point. You're just too anti-me* to see it.
*meaning opposite of me
Shake hands, and develop a new power source? ;)
You are a callous bastard. You just want to create the largest explosion in the history of mankind combining sane and insane matter in that way.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:13:30 PMIn fact, I think there are some parts of the country where wild animals actually live in places with clifss and mountains and caves and other dangerous places, and the humans don't even fucking put up fences or anything for them.
True enough, but in general I expect that the wild animals that live near cliffs know how to avoid plummeting off of them. If you relocate an animal from wide open plains (or one bread from such stock) to a place with lots of rough terrain and steep cliff drops, you do have some responsibility for the broken legs and cliff plummeting that may occur as a result.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:35:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2012, 11:28:21 AM
No you wouldn't. People die all the time. We post videos of it on You tube and laugh.
It is true people die all the time. I don't recall watching any videos of people dying on youtube and then laughing. I also don't recall times where we said 30 people dying was not newsworthy.
Of course, not really sure what this has to do with anything as clearly animals aren't people.
Fuck, we had one last week. Israelis knocked out a Hamas guy. Laughs and good cheer was had by all.
I didn't see it, else I would have been disappointed.
Don't worry, maybe they'll get the #1 guy next airstrike.
:D
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 06:14:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 05:13:30 PMIn fact, I think there are some parts of the country where wild animals actually live in places with clifss and mountains and caves and other dangerous places, and the humans don't even fucking put up fences or anything for them.
True enough, but in general I expect that the wild animals that live near cliffs know how to avoid plummeting off of them. If you relocate an animal from wide open plains (or one bread from such stock) to a place with lots of rough terrain and steep cliff drops, you do have some responsibility for the broken legs and cliff plummeting that may occur as a result.
OK, so I have nothing but contempt for the intelligence of animals (or anything that's not me, for that matter), but even very stupid animals are generally good at not walking off a cliff.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:56:51 PM
It isn't news because stuff like this doesn't raise a significant concern. The only reason it's being reported is because of the big-name draw of the movie
You just answered your own argument.
Sure there are probably far worse abuses that happen to animals throughout the world every day.
But none of them are being perpetrated by a Hollywood studio backed by enormous resources making a mass market film that will reap billions. That does make this a story.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 11:54:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2012, 11:49:31 AM
I would imagine that the lawsuits will be quite reasonable towards him. After all, the man is half the economy of New Zealand, and the other half is the slaughter of sheep.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. It's a shitty situation, but I can't imagine that much will happen. Peter Jackson is the source of a huge chunk of the New Zealand economy. Even NZ PETA folks would tread carefully with him, I'd guess.
That would suggest a level of rationality that many of the PETA types have never demonstrated.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2012, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 02:56:51 PM
It isn't news because stuff like this doesn't raise a significant concern. The only reason it's being reported is because of the big-name draw of the movie
You just answered your own argument.
Sure there are probably far worse abuses that happen to animals throughout the world every day.
But none of them are being perpetrated by a Hollywood studio backed by enormous resources making a mass market film that will reap billions. That does make this a story.
That doesn't make it truly newsworthy, any more than any other tabloid obsession with the minutiae of celebrity life. Particularly as, according to the article itself, the issues were investigated and remedied.
For a 'non-story' it certainly has some legs. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 09:07:48 AM
That doesn't make it truly newsworthy, any more than any other tabloid obsession with the minutiae of celebrity life.
But this isn't about the minutiae of celebrity life or indeed about celebreties at all. It is about large business enterprises with high public profiles engaging in activities contrary to their own publicly announced (and promoted) policies and contrary to industry standards.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 09:07:48 AM
That doesn't make it truly newsworthy, any more than any other tabloid obsession with the minutiae of celebrity life.
But this isn't about the minutiae of celebrity life or indeed about celebreties at all. It is about large business enterprises with high public profiles engaging in activities contrary to their own publicly announced (and promoted) policies and contrary to industry standards.
That's not exactly mutually exclusive. It can be tabloid obsession and about a large business enterprise with a public profile.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2012, 03:22:54 PM
That's not exactly mutually exclusive. It can be tabloid obsession and about a large business enterprise with a public profile.
Right - and it also can be a real news story and tabloid grist at the same time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10848911
QuoteOn November 6, the SPCA received an anonymous letter alleging animals had been mistreated at the farm between January and August 2011.
It alerted Sir Peter and the American Humane Association, which oversees animal welfare on films, and sent an SPCA inspector to the farm.
"There wasn't anything in the allegations," said SPCA national chief executive Robyn Kippenberger. "This is certainly not about the animals. If it had been about the animals someone would have come to us when it was happening, not months later.
No one did."
I'm not sure I really get that article given that the production company already admitted they'd mishandled things back then but had taken steps to fix them.
That does point out that the timing of these comments was for tabloid like maneuvers though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 09:07:48 AM
That doesn't make it truly newsworthy, any more than any other tabloid obsession with the minutiae of celebrity life.
But this isn't about the minutiae of celebrity life or indeed about celebreties at all. It is about large business enterprises with high public profiles engaging in activities contrary to their own publicly announced (and promoted) policies and contrary to industry standards.
Except that the facts as reported do not support that interpretation. Rather, what appears to be happening is some sort of employee-employer spat, in which a disgruntled former employee appears to be working PETA and the tabloid press in order to retroactively claim whistleblower status.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 06:03:02 PM
the tabloid press
That's a bit of a harsh way to describe AP.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 06:03:02 PM
Except that the facts as reported do not support that interpretation. Rather, what appears to be happening is some sort of employee-employer spat, in which a disgruntled former employee appears to be working PETA and the tabloid press in order to retroactively claim whistleblower status.
Those facts, even as you characterize them, are not inconsistent with my intepretation. They are about the way in which a newsworthy item came to the press. The manner in which a story comes to press attention is often sordid. The newsworthiness of the item stands or falls on its own significance, and not the motivations of the source.