[ViraA]

Originally Posted by FearsMuse ↗

Poor little pierced pussy.

Oh, to have access to a 'little pierced pussy'...

[nyazzip]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

I agree with everything you say here, and appreciate the difference that you refer to. My point is about censorship. Let's face it, most people who like to look at blood, death, and gore aren't overly philosophical regarding whether the victims deserved what they got or not. No, it is simply a matter of voyeurism - this is what turns them on. So, since this site is dedicated to satisfying such desires, it ought not to discriminate between humans (who often "deserve" it) and animals, where the concept of "deserving" is much harder to apply (e.g. do prey "deserve" to be eaten by predators? Perhaps, in the context of a Darwinian system of thought, but the concept of "desert" here would be an amoral one revolving around the long term benefits to the species and to the overall eco system.)

but if animal related gore is not censored, then there is the risk of creating a "supply" to fill the void...who has the video cameras, internet, and sadistic tendencies? humans do. and rest assured there is no shortage of humans who would stage/produce animal torture and death just for the thrill of having an audience for it. I for one have a problem with that.

[Greenfind235]

Originally Posted by nyazzip ↗

but if animal related gore is not censored, then there is the risk of creating a "supply" to fill the void...who has the video cameras, internet, and sadistic tendencies? humans do. and rest assured there is no shortage of humans who would stage/produce animal torture and death just for the thrill of having an audience for it. I for one have a problem with that.

This times 1000

[hellgate9876]

Rest in Peace Kitty and We know you are in the company of God now forever.

[bileboy]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

Watch and see if somebody isn't going to bitch about showing the violent death of an animal - somebody who has no problem with similar deaths of humans.

I hate anything involving animals, it's a strange double standard I can't explain and won't defend, but it's there. It really upsets me. Human death rarely upsets me (kids and old people do sometimes) - there my interest is the finality of death itself as a part of the human experience. Animals have an experience I can't relate to, so to see it has no redeeming qualities, I just feel terrible for them. Usually even the thumbnail of animal stuff is too much and I like that DR usually avoids it. I clicked this one because I presumed the cat had died a quick accidental death, a little surprised to see the cat still alive, I would not have clicked if I knew that but caveat emptor.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

I agree with everything you say here, and appreciate the difference that you refer to. My point is about censorship. Let's face it, most people who like to look at blood, death, and gore aren't overly philosophical regarding whether the victims deserved what they got or not. No, it is simply a matter of voyeurism - this is what turns them on. So, since this site is dedicated to satisfying such desires, it ought not to discriminate between humans (who often "deserve" it) and animals, where the concept of "deserving" is much harder to apply (e.g. do prey "deserve" to be eaten by predators? Perhaps, in the context of a Darwinian system of thought, but the concept of "desert" here would be an amoral one revolving around the long term benefits to the species and to the overall eco system.)

There's lots of places out there if you are looking for dead animals, and as was mentioned there are a lot if people that like to add to their content.

Personally when I see someone hurting kids or animals, it makes me want to make them famous on this site but, that's just my opinion.

[gimlet]

Ain't nuthin' better than the Indy 500, though I do like a piece of pussy now and then...

[philovan]

Originally Posted by nyazzip ↗

but if animal related gore is not censored, then there is the risk of creating a "supply" to fill the void...who has the video cameras, internet, and sadistic tendencies? humans do. and rest assured there is no shortage of humans who would stage/produce animal torture and death just for the thrill of having an audience for it. I for one have a problem with that.

You make a good point and I share your visceral aversion to such stuff. Yet there is plenty of material on this site that documents the gory and deadly outcome of sadistic tendencies being exercised so as to create human victims (e.g. executions by cartels, ISIS, etc.). So what is the basis for a double standard? That small animals are defenseless victims? But so are many of the civilian victims of such executioners. Also, who can say what role the existence of sites such as this plays in the recording of massacres? I have no doubt that such killers would do their dirty work in any event, but knowing that it will appear on the Internet may encourage a bit more "drama", more drawn out and agonizing deaths in order to facilitate the intimidation of others. Indeed some of them are staged specifically with their propagation on the Internet in mind.

In summary: I share your concerns on a "gut" level, but have a hard time constructing a logical argument for discriminatory censorship in a Darwinian framework wherein humans are just a "higher" (in a narrowly defined sense involving language and technological development) animal. If you want to argue from a religious perspective, that is a different ballgame, and I have not addressed those sorts of arguments.

[commondenom]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

Watch and see if somebody isn't going to bitch about showing the violent death of an animal - somebody who has no problem with similar deaths of humans.

that's because humans suck

[Dayle]

Looks like it was alive when they took it off with the iron Spike,Cats are tougher than you think.
I'm sure it made it if it got to a vet.