What on earth is the point of the Cat on LSD fpp in the blue from Meatbomb? December 2, 2006 7:40 AM   Subscribe

What on earth is the point of the Cat on LSD fpp in the blue from Meatbomb?

Surely we don't need telling that administering recreational drugs to animals is wrong, especially in a way that basically just encourages people to gawp. If people have a need to ogle animal cruelty there are plenty of sites to cater to their despicable tastes. Mefi, isn't one of them and I'd like to see Meatbomb's post deleted.
posted by Arqa to Etiquette/Policy at 7:40 AM (100 comments total)

OgrishFilter.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:50 AM on December 2, 2006


Not that I advocate drugging animals (though I recall a dog getting a contact high when I was much younger), it's gotten to the point of Metafilter being so huge, any position anyone takes, no matter how lethal or benign, is bound to offend at least one other person. As such, I don't think deletion is necessary in this case.
posted by crunchland at 8:02 AM on December 2, 2006


The cat has been dead for years. Get over it.
posted by Optamystic at 8:03 AM on December 2, 2006


It got flagged to death and after a quick skim of the video, I don't see anything redeeming about it, so I removed it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:09 AM on December 2, 2006


And by doing so history is changed, the cat was no longer dosed.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 8:11 AM on December 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


hail cathowie!
posted by quonsar at 8:15 AM on December 2, 2006


And Shroedinger cried.
posted by crunchland at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2006


And by doing so history is changed, the cat was no longer dosed.

Jonathan Sefran Foer's terrible novels still exist if I don't read them, but I still benefit by not reading them.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:17 AM on December 2, 2006


It got flagged to death and after a quick skim of the video, I don't see anything redeeming about it, so I removed it.


ceilingcat is pleased.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:35 AM on December 2, 2006


I saw a cat vibrating. Not really funny, nor horrifying. Then again, I have no soul. I lack the ability to paint the rich tapestry of pain people seem to have extrapolated that this cat must have suffered 60 years ago. Or I missed the part where the post was encouraging people to do the same. But thanks to the miracle of RSS and MetaTalk, I was still able to see the video, and now can refrain from my own home experiments.

Also, was jack_mo's spider link real? The one page seemed to be legit (except the one hand-drawn web, which might just be an approximation to replace a bad photograph in a 50 year old study), but the "mental state" page was obviously a joke.
posted by Eideteker at 8:39 AM on December 2, 2006


Of course ceilingcat is pleased. He's baked off his ass.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:40 AM on December 2, 2006


I have seen the spider web link before. I remember wondering exactly how do you "expose" a spider to cocaine or caffeine?

Then there is this linked from that page.

Caffeine

EXT. (LS) HALF FINISHED AND POORLY MADE

(CU) Spider’s eyes dart from left to right (worried expression). The spiders whole body shakes, teeth chatter. Occasionally the spider lets out short screams with flash bulb eyes.

posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:50 AM on December 2, 2006


Fair enough. I thought it was interesting. But by deleting that thread, we are also depriving metafilter of the Cat and Crow playing together, and the stoned professor. I hope it is OK to repost them here?

And as a special bonus, cute kitties fighting for "King of the Tissue Box".
posted by Meatbomb at 9:13 AM on December 2, 2006


Like slaughterhouses and war, what we don't see didn't happen.
posted by 31d1 at 9:18 AM on December 2, 2006


If people have a need to ogle animal cruelty there are plenty of sites to cater to their despicable tastes.

So, you know of these sites?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2006


Safran Foer.
posted by Mid at 9:29 AM on December 2, 2006


Let's make it a complete embargo on anything cat-related.
posted by Joeforking at 9:45 AM on December 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


I can't believe the post was deleted - it was funny, and I doubt the cat really gave a shit once the trip wore off. Not to mention that daft posts about people doing mean things to cats for our entertainment are acknowledged classics of the MetaFilter canon, proudly tagged with metafilterhistory.

This kowtowing to the demands of militant cat fetishists sets a dangerous precedent.

Also, was jack_mo's spider link real?

I've no idea to be honest. Other sites claim it's from a book called Spider Communication: Mechanisms and Ecological Significance, which seems to be real.
posted by jack_mo at 9:46 AM on December 2, 2006


I for one am pleased to see that the new chastised and reformed meatbomb still gets play in the grey.
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:04 AM on December 2, 2006


Shouldn't have been deleted. It was horrific, I hated it but I'm glad I saw it.

A post showing a video of chickens crammed together in a factory farm wouldn't have been deleted would it? If so, then Metafilter really isn't what I thought it was.

I loathe animal cruelty of any kind and showing these videos makes a good point and can create a forum for discussion.

Before the web we didn't have access to material like this. It's a good thing (not the material but the proof it happened) and should be shared. Dissapointing.
posted by twistedonion at 10:16 AM on December 2, 2006


And the cat's in the graveyard and the silver spoon's up his nose,
Gone from The Blue and the Meatbomb decomposed.
When you comin' home, cat?
I don't know when, but we'll win an iPod then, son.
You know we'll have a good FPP, then.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:35 AM on December 2, 2006


Does a good Metatalk post that is based on my deleted FPP count towards me winning the stuff, or the OP Arqa?
posted by Meatbomb at 10:46 AM on December 2, 2006


In lieu of the Nintendo Wii, Meatbomb should get deserves a Philips CD-I as a consolation prize.
I understand it had its own versions of Zelda.
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:50 AM on December 2, 2006


Meatbomb's kitty and crow link upthread just brought me great joy.
posted by quin at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2006


You couldn't tell from the post that this fell into the weird science and cruelty to animals categories than the funny kitty link category.

I think that's why it wound up with people expressing outrage in the thread and flagging the post.

it's gotten to the point of Metafilter being so huge, any position anyone takes, no matter how lethal or benign, is bound to offend at least one other person. As such, I don't think deletion is necessary in this case.

That's a principle to keep in mind, crunchland, but it doesn't tell anyone what to do in any given situation. This one seemd to really rile people, with reason. Disturbing image, upset expectations.
posted by ibmcginty at 10:59 AM on December 2, 2006


Man, if we still had the img tag it'd be time for:

Acid-freaking Ceiling Cat thought he was on the floor.
posted by loquacious at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2006


I agree, ibmcginty, it probably wouldn't have been (such) an issue if I had warned people better. Having seen it myself, I didn't consider that "please don't give your cat LSD" might be taken as humourous rather than horrific.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2006


The merit in the post/video is to show how idiotic and selfish humans are that they would do that to an animal. I'm rather annoyed it got deleted.

The video upset you? Good, do something about it. And I don't mean bug the admins help you pretend it doesn't exist. Cruelty to animals happens every day and you're offended sensibilities don't make the situation any better if they're the extent of your outrage.

Ugh. Cat people can be fucking annoying.
posted by dobbs at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2006


Does a good Metatalk post that is based on my deleted FPP count towards me winning the stuff, or the OP Arqa?

no, but you're in the running for one of that cat's descendants
posted by pyramid termite at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2006


I hated it so much, I flagged it as "offensive content" after it had already been deleted.
posted by interrobang at 12:17 PM on December 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


I remember seeing part of a video on the net of a bound cat being stabbed to death with scissors. We know shit like that happens; we don't need to see video proving it.

We do need more descriptive posts. You should never have to guess what's at the end of the link. "Oh, what a surprise. Cat torture."
posted by pracowity at 12:20 PM on December 2, 2006


No offense, but there's a HUGE world of difference between a cat being stabbed with scissors and an animal expiriment from the 1950's. Yes, the video is creepy and disturbing, but I thought it was very interesting. I also thought it'd be a good video to show high school kids to keep them off LSD.

Modifying the description would have been enough. Deletion is silly. Does anyone have a download link?
posted by ®@ at 12:49 PM on December 2, 2006


It was just horrible.

(poor kitty, overdosed with drugs...)

Thanks for getting rid of it, Matt...
posted by jpburns at 12:49 PM on December 2, 2006


®@, and other interested parties: The deleted thread was number 56660.
posted by Meatbomb at 1:09 PM on December 2, 2006


Kids today act like they never heard of LoFi MetaFilter!
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2006


pracowity : "We know shit like that happens; we don't need to see video proving it."

I found it interesting, not as proof that it happens, but to see what happens. I don't need to see a cat stabbed to death, I can guess what would happen. But I've been curious what would happen to a person/animal with a massive dosage of LSD, and this post answered that (and it wasn't what I expected).

People massively disliked the post, and I understand that. Matt deleted it, and I understand that, too. But it's bothering me a bit that people are letting their dislike of the subject matter cloud their judgement when talking about it. After all, we don't say about a gallery of photographs "We know that photographs exist, we don't need to see them to prove it". We don't say about an article about schizophrenia "We know articles about schizophrenia exist, we don't need to see articles to prove it". Why, in this case, are you treating the post like it was made only to prove that fucked up scientific testing exists?

Again, I'm not saying that as a criticism of the deletion, or a defence of the post, it just seems like people are letting their emotions get in the way of their logic, which, after all, is what we bitch at so many people in the red states for doing.

®@ : "I also thought it'd be a good video to show high school kids to keep them off LSD."

Not really. If you see the link, you'll understand: that cat was given what appears to be an absolutely insane amount of LSD. High school kids will know people who've had LSD, and will know that people on it act nothing like the cat, and it'll just be swept under the rug as "school admin propaganda". I saw plenty of that in my high school: accurate information mixed with inaccurate or exaggerated information, which led some people to ignore all of it, including the stuff they should have listened to.
posted by Bugbread at 1:26 PM on December 2, 2006


Actually, on a bit more consideration:

I have to say I'm actually a little proud of MeFi on the reaction to this: sure, there may be a few weird logical gaps going on, but so far almost everybody is saying either "What they did to the cat is shit" or "This post is shit", and almost nobody (or possibly nobody whatsoever) is saying "Meatbomb is an evil person", which is what I'd expected would happen. Everyone is focusing on the issue or the post, and not the person, which I think is a good thing.
posted by Bugbread at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2006


and the cat came back, the very next day.

please, please cortex?
posted by YoBananaBoy at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2006


But it's bothering me a bit that people are letting their dislike of the subject matter cloud their judgement when talking about it.

I think people don't dislike the subject matter ("LSD") so much as the evident suffering of an animal to satisfy what some might consider an ugly curiosity. We've had a similar discussion about the 9/11-death-gasp post, and a similar divide of responses occur.

Some don't believe it necessary to witness torture first-hand, in order to comprehend the underlying cruelty — for that matter, witnessing the event may not necessarily be required to change or amplify one's view that suffering is itself a bad thing.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:46 PM on December 2, 2006


Blazecock Pileon : "I think people don't dislike the subject matter ('LSD') so much as the evident suffering of an animal to satisfy what some might consider an ugly curiosity."

Sorry, I was a bit vague; when I said "subject matter" I was referring to animal cruelty, not LSD.

Other than that, I agree with you. Like I said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with people's conclusions, I'm just disagreeing with a few people's defences for those conclusions. But it's not a big deal, and it's only a subset of the people opposed to the post, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.
posted by Bugbread at 1:53 PM on December 2, 2006


But it's bothering me a bit that people are letting their dislike of the subject matter cloud their judgement when talking about it.

But we have all seen pictures of poor monkeys or dogs or rabbits being subjected to horrors in the lab. Cranium popped open, electrodes inserted, etc. What good is looking at video of a poisoned cat? Especially, what good is it to surprise people with video of a poisoned cat?

And that is half the problem: it would have been better if the post had said something accurately describing the link rather than trying to be a joke. "1950s laboratory video of a cat in distress after having been given a massive overdose of LSD." Why do people play a guessing game with posts? Do they think the link target is a punch line whose content cannot be revealed early without somehow spoiling some hilarious joke?
posted by pracowity at 2:00 PM on December 2, 2006


GlumbertFilter: The Lost Seinfeld Episode
posted by knave at 2:08 PM on December 2, 2006


Inspirational Cat on a Treadmill video.
posted by maryh at 2:21 PM on December 2, 2006


It is interesting to read past debates about deleting disturbing content - such as whether or not to keep the link to Daniel Pearl's execution. That link was not deleted.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:34 PM on December 2, 2006


It's probably just a combination of the presentation (haha, wacky video) and how long ago the video was made (the cat's long dead, there's no present cat drugging crisis, that I'm aware of).
posted by knave at 2:39 PM on December 2, 2006


almost nobody (or possibly nobody whatsoever) is saying "Meatbomb is an evil person"

That goes without saying.
posted by StickyCarpet at 2:52 PM on December 2, 2006


Why do people play a guessing game with posts? Do they think the link target is a punch line whose content cannot be revealed early without somehow spoiling some hilarious joke?

No, pracowity, that wasn't my intention at all, as I indicated upthread. We agree on this point, and I did not intend that people would click through so I could make a "joke". I thought the title was self-explanatory, and I see now that I was wrong.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:58 PM on December 2, 2006


It's just a cat.
posted by spaltavian at 3:22 PM on December 2, 2006


You're just a person.
posted by moonbird at 3:29 PM on December 2, 2006


If you're saying you'd be okay with someone giving me LSD, moonbird, that makes two of us.
posted by spaltavian at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2006


pracowity : "But we have all seen pictures of poor monkeys or dogs or rabbits being subjected to horrors in the lab. Cranium popped open, electrodes inserted, etc. What good is looking at video of a poisoned cat?"

Like I said, I'm not saying the link should have stayed, just giving a counterpoint to the people who say it had no merits, as opposed to the demerits outweighing the merits. Sure, I've seen animal testing, but I've never seen the effects of a massive amount of drugs. That was the interesting part to me. It just feels like the "X" in the "we've seen X before, why see X again?" argument is being cast quite widely.

To compare it to something far more benign: the gallery of scanned photographs of cats.
- Cast the net too narrowly, and you get additional posts of scanned cats, except this time they're in color. Or upside down. Or with lens flares.
- Cast the net too widely, and then galleries of restorations of Renaissance paintings are closed down, because "We've already seen galleries of images, why see another?"

In this case, I just think that the a massive dose of a drug is sufficiently different from cranium popping and electrode inserting that I think it falls out of the net.

But, once again again, I'm cool with the objection that "we shouldn't have video links to cruel videos on the blue". I'm not against the deletion. I just disagree with the "We've seen X, why see X again" argument.

pracowity : "And that is half the problem: it would have been better if the post had said something accurately describing the link rather than trying to be a joke."

Oh yeah, totally agreed. If I take meatbomb at his/her word that it wasn't intended as a joke, my guess is just that he/she saw the video first, and made the title light to alleviate the weight of the video. The problem is that, for everyone else, who hadn't seen the video (including me), they saw the light title as indicating light content, and thus got freaked.
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on December 2, 2006


Maybe I'm in the minority, but I expected something negative when I read the title. I didn't really expect major convulsions, but I thought the cat would be severely disoriented, and be in harms way in some fashion. What were other people expecting?
posted by 23skidoo at 4:18 PM on December 2, 2006


I respect the plenary authority of the admins to delete posts, and I can't get exercised about a post's deletion, and I'm not a vegetarian, but I wanted to see this thread play out. Just because Mefi fetishizes cats and I wondered how many Mefis were outraged outraged! to see the movie as they ate their salami sandwiches for lunch.

Also, I actually can write a good sentence if I try.
posted by psmith at 4:47 PM on December 2, 2006


I thought the cat would be severely disoriented, and be in harms way in some fashion. What were other people expecting?

China Cat Sunflower
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:27 PM on December 2, 2006


You didn't care for acid in a cat, wait until I make a post that features acid on a cat.

Whiners.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:31 PM on December 2, 2006


You're just a person.

But a cake can't make a delicious pie!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:59 PM on December 2, 2006


You know what would be funny?

If someone with the video prowess would do an edit of that zoomed in closer on the cat so that we had no sense of background and flipped it upside down so that it looked like it was clutching the ceiling just like Sylvester being scared by the mice pretending to be ghosts while Porky slept on in that Looney Tunes short, "Scaredy Cat".
posted by sourwookie at 6:27 PM on December 2, 2006


For posterity, then: cats in scanners good, drugs in cats bad.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:30 PM on December 2, 2006


There's a video of UK soldiers being sent into mock battle while strung out on LSD.

Was it deleted? Why not?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:33 PM on December 2, 2006


There's a video of UK soldiers being sent into mock battle while strung out on LSD.

I always thought that "strung out" was a strictly a euphemism for "addicted". For example, "he's strung out on heroin" means he's addicted to heroin, not that he's currently on heroin. So the UK soldiers you're referring to wouldn't be referred to as strung out on LSD, but simply on LSD. But according to one web dictionary "strung out" can also mean "stupefied from ingestion of or withdrawal from a drug". So there you go: learn something new every day, I reckon.

Well, anyway, aside from all that, I'm curious: where is this video you're referring to? I'd like to see it.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:47 PM on December 2, 2006


I always thought that "strung out" was a strictly a euphemism for "addicted".

See, I always thought that "strung out" meant quite specifically: not merely addicted (especially to opiates, but equally well to amphetamines or coke or other stuff), but unable after a period of heavy consumption recently to acquire and indulge in any more, and so feeling very seedy indeed. So there you go.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:48 AM on December 3, 2006


Well, anyway, aside from all that, I'm curious: where is this video you're referring to? I'd like to see it.

Please don't feed LSD to your soldier.

Or do, actually - they have a rare old time.
posted by jack_mo at 3:11 AM on December 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


Hey, thanks, jack_mo! Now that was funny! "With one man climbing a tree to feed the birds, the troop commander gave up, admitting that he could no longer control himself or his troops". Fantastic!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:27 AM on December 3, 2006


stavrosthewonderchicken : "For posterity, then: cats in scanners good, drugs in cats bad."

Cats in Scanners? Naw, I'm pretty sure people would have a problem with videos of cats having their heads blown up by telepathic mutants as well.

And regarding "strung out", I always just thought it meant the same as "stoned to the point of incoherence". So you could be strung out without being addicted, and you could also be addicted without being strung out.
posted by Bugbread at 4:48 AM on December 3, 2006


That 'troops on acid' video was the funniest thing I've seen in ages.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 5:07 AM on December 3, 2006


Sure, I've seen animal testing, but I've never seen the effects of a massive amount of drugs.

How do you make a distinction between "animal testing" and "administration of massive quantities of a drug" in the case of this footage, when the latter falls within the scope of the former?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:20 AM on December 3, 2006


Yeah, that was badly phrased. I probably should have said "massive amounts of recreational psychoactive drugs". And I didn't mean that the two were separate, but, as you say, that the latter falls within the former, but has (for me) an interesting aspect that makes it stand out.
posted by Bugbread at 6:53 AM on December 3, 2006


Maybe it's time for everyone to come clean here: who's taken massive amounts of recreational psychoactive drugs and who hasn't? Time to separate the men from the boys! ;-)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:20 AM on December 3, 2006


Does anyone seriously think that post was "best of the Web"?
posted by RussHy at 7:42 AM on December 3, 2006


Has anyone looked at cat-scan.com recently? It's been taken over by search engine spammers. To save you the trouble, here's what's on it:
Cat-scan.com: What you need, when you need it

Main
» Female Sexual Dysfunction » Premature Ejaculation » Cat Scan » Cat Pictures » Dick Pictures » Female Orgasm

Popular
Dick Suckers « Body Scan « Cat Scan Contest « Photo Contest « Cat Picture « Orgasm «
Cat-scan.com favorites: Airline Tickets | Masturbation | Scan

© Cat-scan.com 2006 | Bookmark this page | Make this your homepage
The best part is the "Make this your homepage."
posted by grouse at 8:44 AM on December 3, 2006


drugs in cats bad.

Monkey cum-eating bad, too, don't forget. Matt's being consistent on the "pointless high-squick-factor video" posts.
posted by mediareport at 8:59 AM on December 3, 2006


jack_mo, that link is high-larious, and if you don't want to post it to the blue, I will. And claim those precious favorites all for myself.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:28 AM on December 3, 2006


You could post it to the blue ibmcginty, but it would be double.
posted by quin at 10:48 AM on December 3, 2006


[For the record, that video does contain one of my favorite examples of 'dry British humor']

50 minutes after taking the drug, radio communication had become difficult if not impossible.


Where the video shows a staggering, confused radio operator clumsily trying to pull his headset around a tree.
posted by quin at 10:55 AM on December 3, 2006


jack_mo, that link is high-larious, and if you don't want to post it to the blue, I will.

Been done.
posted by mediareport at 10:57 AM on December 3, 2006


*doh*
posted by mediareport at 10:58 AM on December 3, 2006


I am so going to regret clicking mediareport's link. Sigh.

I finally got around to watching the cat video. BFD. So the cat had a trip. We can't actually say it (a) was a bad trip (who knows how a cat would perceive such a thing!) or (b) the cat remembered it after it was over (they probably dissected its brain anyway).

And it is certainly a less disturbing video than, say, ANY of the freakin' atrocities going on against actual, live human beings right this second. People who freaked about the video need to pull their heads out of their asses for a day to really look around their community. Right now, someone within walking distance of you is currently in far, far worse state than that cat was: they are hungry, or cold, or being raped, or etc.

Sheesh.

Was the FPP any good? No, it sucked. But for gods' sake, people, get a sense of proportion.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:28 AM on December 3, 2006


five fresh fish : "And it is certainly a less disturbing video than, say, ANY of the freakin' atrocities going on against actual, live human beings right this second...Right now, someone within walking distance of you is currently in far, far worse state than that cat was: they are hungry, or cold, or being raped, or etc.
...But for gods' sake, people, get a sense of proportion."


Kinda comparing apples to oranges, aren't we? The complaint is about linking to video of the event. I'm pretty sure if someone linked to a video of a person getting raped, the furore here would absolutely eclipse that of the cat. I think, in that sense, people generally have a sense of proportion.

And how do you define "walking distance" anyway? I'm in the middle of the financial district, at 05:00 am. The only people who live within what I'd consider walking distance are the imperial family of Japan, and I'm pretty sure nobody in the imperial household is hungry, cold, or being raped right now.

Actually...you may be right. It's late enough to be up and having a jog, but a bit too early for breakfast. The Emperor of Japan might very well be hungry right now.
posted by Bugbread at 12:13 PM on December 3, 2006


That troops video makes it all worthwhile, in my opinion, thanks jack_mo.

So British, so straight up, these are the people who gave us Fawlty Towers and The Office. "...the efficiency of the rocket launcher team was also vey impaired. Ten minutes later, the attacking section has lost all sense of urgency. Notice the bunching and indecision as they enter a wood occupied by the enemy."
posted by Meatbomb at 1:04 PM on December 3, 2006


I'm pretty sure nobody in the imperial household is hungry, cold, or being raped right now

heh ... that's what they WANT you to think ...
posted by pyramid termite at 1:46 PM on December 3, 2006


No homeless in your area, bugbread? That surprises me. Does Japan not have homeless?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:36 PM on December 3, 2006


There are tons of homeless in Japan, but they don't live in the financial area - they tend to cluster around parks, on riverbanks, and other places where you can lay semi-permanent claim to a little groundspace. Social/commercial areas also have a fair amount, even if there are no parks/rivers. But I've never seen a homeless guy anywhere near my workplace.
posted by Bugbread at 6:51 PM on December 3, 2006


FFF, why do you keep telling people how they should react? I didn't like the video, and I thought it was pretty horrifying. Should I have some kind of disclaimer in every one of my comments that spell out what I consider to be more serious issues?

WaterQualityInGhana*PetOverpopulation*HumanRightsViolationsInChechnya*PovertyinPakistan.....
posted by Liosliath at 6:54 PM on December 3, 2006


Should I have some kind of disclaimer in every one of my comments that spell out what I consider to be more serious issues?

with all due respect that's not enough ... you have to be appalled and miserable for the rest of your life until the world is perfect, otherwise you don't care ... and make very sure that the priorities of what you're miserable about are exactly correct, too

remember ... unless you're trying to suffer as much as everyone else in the world is, then you're taking advantage of them ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:02 PM on December 3, 2006


I hear people kill animals for their 'meat', as well.

DO YOU WANT TO BAN THEM AS WELL?!
posted by oxford blue at 6:54 PM on December 4, 2006


Yeah oxford blue, that sentiment was mentioned upthread. I think the anger here comes from the fact that most of the time, our livestock isn't tortured before it's slaughtered.

And yes, all of this is debatable; is giving a cat LSD torture? Are slaughterhouse conditions torture? I know. But you are seeing a gut reaction to an animal undergoing perceived harm for no discernibly good reason.

(But to answer your question, yes. I suspect there is a contingent of Mefites who would like to ban eating meat. But that is not what this discussion is about.)
posted by quin at 7:04 PM on December 4, 2006


No, not ban eating meat, but rather ban those who eat meat, or disagree with your idealogical position.
posted by oxford blue at 7:28 PM on December 4, 2006


I felt the need to come here and express my opinion. I read the first few posts in this thread but not the whole thing. I am a cat lover and a vegetarian.

Mathowie, thank you so so SO much for deleting that crap. I only wish I hadn't been reading in Bloglines and clicked through without reading the comments.

Meatbomb, you must be fucking insane if you think the post title and link text were sufficient to warn anybody. Nowhere did you indicate that this was a video of animal cruelty.

The fact that the cat is dead makes no difference. The fact that it was "for science" makes no difference. The point is that IT WAS LINKED ON METAFILTER as if it was just another web video we should all go check out.

Thanks for letting me post this here, folks. The nausea I was feeling after watching that crap is subsiding.
posted by etoile at 9:39 AM on December 6, 2006


Oh the HUMANITY!
posted by oxford blue at 2:16 PM on December 6, 2006


Nowhere did you indicate that this was a video of animal cruelty.

He indicated exactly what the video was: a cat on acid. I mean, exactly.

If giving a cat acid is cruel, I wish people were more cruel to me. In any case, avoid the outdoors when it rains- the water will tear through your tissue paper-thin skin.
posted by spaltavian at 11:42 AM on December 7, 2006


I see your point spaltavian, but there are two really important differences, 1.) you know that LSD exists 2.) You are aware of it's effects.

Think of it this way, imagine taking someone that was totally unaware of hallucinogenic drugs and giving him a big hit without telling him. He might think he was losing his mind as they started to kick in. Especially if there was no one there to tell him what was going on.

It would be a cruel thing to do to a person, and for the same reason, it's a cruel thing to do to a cat.
posted by quin at 1:03 PM on December 7, 2006


But if you think giving acid to a cat is cruel, the FPP gave all the information you'd need to know the video was something you consider to be animal cruelty.

I can see (but don't share) concerns for the cat, quality of the FPP or belief than such videos have no place here- but I absolutely do not get those who say they were insufficiently warned.
posted by spaltavian at 1:43 PM on December 7, 2006


I don't disagree about the post at all. I didn't see it before it got deleted, but based on the description, "cat on acid" pretty well sums up the video content.
posted by quin at 2:42 PM on December 7, 2006


In any case, avoid the outdoors when it rains- the water will tear through your tissue paper-thin skin.

You insensitive clod! My father died because he had a rare condition where the rain did rip through his thin skin! I WISH YOU'D BE MORE SENSITIVE!
posted by oxford blue at 2:44 PM on December 7, 2006


I've seen a cat stoned on marijuana. It acted much as a person on marijuana, even though it was unaware of the existence of drugs.

I don't see how the phrase "cat on acid" automatically conveys animal cruelty. To me, it conveys "there is a cat, and he is on acid". It could be a very small amount of acid, in which case what seems likely is a cat running around, swatting at dust motes like when he was a kitten, staring at things, and generally acting goofy. Perhaps "emotionally distraught". Or it could be an absolutely insane amount of acid, like, apparently, was actually used in this case.

"Cat on acid" might be animal cruelty, and it might not. Heck, even if one believes giving cats acid, even .000000000001 micrograms, is in itself cruel, then the phrase "cat on acid" might be extremely mild animal cruelty, or extremely extreme animal cruelty. The phrase, in itself, is not sufficient to convey the contents of the video.
posted by Bugbread at 2:48 PM on December 7, 2006


I thought it was a cat being disolved in acid, so, yeah - I thought the link was kinda lame.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:59 PM on December 7, 2006


So it's only animal cruelty if the cat has a bad trip? Everyone who freaked out went in knowing they wouldn't like the content.

You have someone who introduces themselves with "I am a cat lover and a vegetarian", yet somehow they didn't know enough about themselves to know this would be something they wouldn't want to watch?
posted by spaltavian at 3:53 PM on December 7, 2006


spaltavian : "So it's only animal cruelty if the cat has a bad trip?"

Pretty much. Doing something animals/people find pleasurable, and which don't cause harm, are usually not referred to as cruelty.
posted by Bugbread at 6:44 PM on December 7, 2006


Really? Because upthread someone said it was an issue of consent. What if I was giving a cat acid in hopes it would be a good trip? Would that be cruel? Can it be proven the cat in the video was having a bad trip?
posted by spaltavian at 8:02 PM on December 7, 2006


spaltavian : "Really? Because upthread someone said it was an issue of consent."

Ok, so I disagree with someone upthread.

spaltavian : "What if I was giving a cat acid in hopes it would be a good trip? Would that be cruel?"

I don't think so. Cruelty, from what I know, implies intent. If a little kid thinks that the seagulls near his house are pooping everywhere because they have an upset stomach, and he knows that his dad uses Alka Seltzer when he has an upset stomach, and the kid feeds Alka Seltzer to the seagulls in order to help them out, then you're going to have a lot of seagulls in agony and pain, but I wouldn't say that the kid was cruel. It was just a bad luck, fucked up situation that hurt a bunch of seagulls. Cruelty is either knowingly-but-uncaringly causing pain, or intentionally causing pain.

spaltavian : "Can it be proven the cat in the video was having a bad trip?"

Nope. But, then again, it can't be proven that Meatbomb actually posted it (coulda been someone who hacked the MeFi database!), or that Mathowie isn't actually Meatbomb, or that the cat was even really on acid, or that the cat was really a cat, and not some CG doctored up to look like a real cat from an old movie. So we have to work on what appears to be almost certainly true, though not proven.
posted by Bugbread at 9:41 PM on December 7, 2006


« Older Optimizing AskMe   |   Twin Cities meetup Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments