Okay then Colomba, not Columba,
So many places to start, but I’ll just deal with the obvious.
“Because, surprise, surprise, chickens are being eaten every day by millions of people and when they are slaughtered, nobody sings lullaby to them.”
A part of your lovely comment on this subject, your first. So why insist the subject be changed after you had your chance to express your opinions on it?
“The rest of your post IS STUPID, since you are violating rights of other people. If they want to eat meat they will and have all rights in the world to have it on their dinner tables every night, it is a free world.”
Where did I violate anyone’s rights? Isn’t a rights violation when you forcibly stop somebody from doing something it’s their legal right to do? I neither suggested nor committed such a thing. So that’s your first fabrication.
“Please do not use those poor people in Darfur as a shield, to justify your stupid comments, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!!! What does genocide have to do with meat consumption on the planet?!”
Apart from the greed and violence in the region, the genocide is being caused by starvation. At present there is a world shortage of food looming, however these people were starving long before then. If more food was available it only makes sense that it would at least partially ease the availability and cost factor of providing it to these people. Yes there are other reasons the distribution is hindered, namely the Chinese and Russian veto of placing sanctions on the Sudanese government as a means of improving things for these people. However it would do no good if the passage for help opened and there was little or no food to supply them with.
So once again. Remove the right or wrong of killing animals from the equation and just look at this logically. In a shortage you are looking for the highest yield in nourishment possible. There is a great deal of waste in nutrients involved in the rearing of animals. This cannot be recovered. So if crops suitable for providing a high calorie quotient are grown in the same areas now used to feed cattle, as an example, there would be more food available for people to eat. Do you really not get this? A lot of the world is going hungry. Studies were done years ago which determined if this type of thing was done world wide, enough food would be available to feed the world population. No, it’s not going to happen. You advocate the right for a person's taste preferences being deferred to where meat's concerned, regardless of the cost. Even if your mind wasn't set in cast iron, what evidence would you ever accept as proof where all this is concerned? Tell me why these points don't make sense? Don't just call a person stupid because you can't think of a reasonable response. Tell me exactly why it's stupid and I'll offer you the same consideration. And if I got something wrong I'll tell you. Nothing you've said in every post is backed by anything but bluster. Before dismissing it as stupid, spend some time looking into it. You asked a question, this is the answer. Understand what you’re condemning. Darfur and starvation are only one of the many places around the globe where this is happening. The problem is world wide and becoming worse.
“Are those people being eaten, what are you trying to say, imbecile?”
Do you read what you write?
“For your information, righteous one ( I am assuming you belong to PETA and also one of those religious freaks that support the war in Iraq. You sound just like one of them - pushy, dismissive, offensive and abusive) I always keep pets and feed birds. So, STOP ASSUMING, you already made a total ASS of yourself with this post.”
What’s wrong with PETA? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Are you saying you’re against their ethical treatment? If I sound pushy, dismissive, offensive and abusive, it’s not very nice is it? But from the title of your posts right through their content that is exactly how you come across. If this is the only way you know how to communicate your opinion, then what hope do I have in your understanding mine, without addressing you the same way? Why did you butt into this thread and dismiss all opposing posts so rudely? You intend to be crass yet think that you should get a free ride?
So I’m a religious freak? This is exactly how I said you’d respond. My only mention of religion was in response to the intentionally offensive bold face title of your comments and I can guarantee you that a lot more people would find this more offensive than I did. But here you denigrate people’s faith and someone should call you out on that. Does it help justify your bias by attributing my support to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? That’s a more exact means of addressing the situation there, than war. You’re dead wrong in that assumption, and after a paragraph of self-admitted assumptions you tell me to stop assuming? Well, okay, I will. You always keep pets and feed birds? This means what? Just that you’re not an animal lover, you’re a lover of certain species of animals. Who appointed yours as the last say in what kinds of animals are worthy of our care, and what kinds are worthy of torment, torture, captivation and slaughter? If it is your right to do so, then why are you running roughshod over those who extend those worthy of our care to all animals?
If I made such an ass of myself then why is the only response to that, yours?
“This is a movie board for "Goya's ghost" and not a vegetarian/PETA/Christian board, you are at a wrong place.”
I’m glad you’re a vegetarian. I just cannot comprehend that given that, you could be so rude as to put down every comment on this animal cruelty discussion in such an obnoxious manner. Of the above you’ve had your input on PETA, Christianity and vegetarianism. If I am at the wrong place you only have yourself to blame for having led me here. I was just checking up on what people thought about a movie I was thinking of watching. When I saw the mention of possible animal cruelty I, of course, checked on it; unwilling to contribute toward anyone purposefully harming animals in the name of art. The only reason I felt it necessary to comment here was the manner in which you dismissed every opinion expressed but your own.
I’ll leave you some ammunition to make fun of what I believe. I extend this to all life including yours.
If you cannot create life, you have no right to take it. And if you could create life, why would you ever want to?
Play nice.
reply
share
loredanaghidarcea
16 years ago
ok, let me start by saying that I am not a vegetarian nor do I consider ever becoming one ... I don't wear fur because I don't like it and I don't consider myself a bad person for it. I would never hurt an animal, although I hate chickens (i think they're ugly for some inexplicable reason) ... Also I think there is a difference between protecting animals and breeding domestic animals for consumption ... Also I hate soya!!!!!!!!!
That being said, I would hate to think that any animals would be hurt to produce a small scene in a movie ...I don't think that was the case here. As far as I know the film industry has very strict rules about this and I don't think the production team would chance it considering how easy it is to fake a thing like that nowadays ...
ps: plssssss don't attack me for not being a vegetarian!!!!!!!
reply
share
real_hiflyer
16 years ago
loredanaghidarcea,
The reason these rules are in place is to prevent cruelty to animals in film. Without supervision, people do it. If you search the net you'll find sites which focus only on films where cruelty took place. In older westerns, and classics like The Charge of the Light Brigade, the horse fell due to trip wires - not training. Many horses were injured and killed. Where foreign films are concerned there is often less or no control over this altogether. When you see a chicken injured by a horse and carriage the thought that anyone even entertained the idea of digitizing the injury is ridiculous. It probably didn't happen on purpose, rather just by a total lack of concern altogether. Chickens are throwaway animals. Worth Nothing. Why would anyone go to the trouble or expense of digitizing an injury to one? The fact is that most people's attitude would be if a chicken's injured just chop its head off and throw it in a cooking pot.
I really don't expect the movie makers even considered viewers having a problem with this injury and so never went to any effort to prevent it, or hide it from appearing on film. As for the horse's stumbling, we'll never know unless we hear from the production.
In Babel, a scene in Mexico showed a guy laughing after twisting a chicken's head off and seeing a little boy's reaction to the carcass flapping around headless. That isn't digitized. In foreign films I've seen a cat shot on a roof as target practice. Another movie had an outdoor market where one person was cutting the heads off ducks. One after another after another … They neither have the funding or inclination to bother trying to digitize anything. If you go to those internet sites on cruelty you'll see examples of director's directly claiming that yes the killing of a horse (a well known example) was real but it was justified because of his art. These sites aren’t run by crackpots. The examples given are reasoned, accurate, and reputable. They have to be or have people saying they’re all just whackos. Pay no attention.
Some earlier comments dismiss this chicken injury and call anyone who wouldn't think it was digitized as stupid. I would maintain that given most people's attitude to animals, especially chickens, the idea that someone would even bother considering digitizing it is patently ridiculous. If a producer thinks an animal injury is going to cause a lot of complaint, he's more likely to edit out that part of the scene so the public never learns of it in the first place.
Lastly, it’s unfortunate you felt it necessary to ask not to be attacked for not being a vegetarian. You’ll find that but for the obvious exception most people are interested in expressing opinions, not jumping down people’s throats. I think what you’ve written here is exceptional given that you’re not a vegetarian. It’s great to see your concern regardless of your eating practices.
reply
share
Colomba
16 years ago
Loredana - thank you! You are lonely the voice of wisdom here!
This thread is pointless and has nothing to do with the wonderful movie, it's settings or great actors that played in it.
See, meateaters are afraid of vegetarians!
As for you "flyer" , again assuming and making an ass of yourselves - I have already given life, by giving birth to a beautiful boy, who is now a teenager and whom I am very proud of. How you are going to rebut that?
I am neither cruel nor heartless, but would reserve the right to eat meat if I need it for whatever reason, or wear fur if I want to. There are sick people out there that need protein or iron, and MUST consume meat to survive. Again - THIS IS A FREE WORLD. People are free to eat what they want and not be called or savages, believe in any deity other then Jesus, not be called heretics, wear fur and not be called cruel. You seem to be missing this point entirely - people are free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's lives and well being.
And again, what does meat eating have to do with genocide in Darfur? I am not sure, but Dr. Goebbels was a vegetarian, so here you go. And Nazis valued good cattle more then lives of people, Jews in particular. Hitler, he loved his dog so much. Maybe you think that due to that he should be forgiven?
And you ARE at the wrong board. I was trying to stop a pointless discussion, unrelated to this board entirely, unfortunately you butted in trying to push your extremist views and offending me and other people that might not share them. This topic does not belong here, period. Don't try and twist my words out of context. PETA are nothing but a bunch of extremists, trying like you, to push their views on others. Or doing it like Pam Anderson purely for self promotion.
I am not going to waist my precious time and written words on you anymore - not worth it. So don't bother answering me, I am putting you on ignore.
Sayonara
http://www.rusactors.ru/h/haritonov_a/05.shtml
reply
share
real_hiflyer
16 years ago
Well, Colomba,
You are just physically unable to end your nonsense aren’t you. I hope you keep to your promise and this is the last we hear from you. I’ll skip your misspellings, wrong words and bad grammar, shall I, and just reply to your tirade.
Notice how I do this without calling you names and concentrating only on the ‘bits of nonsense’ which resemble a misguided attempt to reply to a post you perpetuate by continuously blurting offensive nonsense again and again.
As for you "flyer" , again assuming and making an ass of yourselves - I have already given life, by giving birth to a beautiful boy, who is now a teenager and whom I am very proud of. How you are going to rebut that?
I said create life not give life. You did neither. You were nothing other than a vessel through which an egg and a sperm met and provided the environment needed for these to join and grow into a baby. Human kind can’t independently create sperm from nothing. Or eggs. All they do is provide the conditions under which the two can achieve union. Do I have to ask how this purpose was formed at the beginning, or do you believe the first man made himself, and so did the woman. I would not be surprised if you did. As you’ve done all along you’ve used words that I didn’t write and replied to these incorrect words with retarded remarks making no sense. You gave birth – you did not give life. Consider yourself rebutted. Concentrate now. I’m so glad I won’t have to ‘rebut’ any more things I didn’t say.
There are sick people out there that need protein or iron, and MUST consume meat to survive.
Take this one line. Cut away all that other garbage about rights and deity’s, I dealt with you on those already, you just don’t listen. In the environment we live in there is no protein or iron which cannot be provided in either a manufactured or plant form. Capitalizing 'must' doesn’t mean you’re right. You’re just stressing or shouting about being right when you’re not. Where’s your proof? What do you base that statement on? Nothing but your own lunacy.
I was trying to stop a pointless discussion, unrelated to this board entirely, unfortunately you butted in trying to push your extremist views and offending me
Again, one line from another entire paragraph of nonsense. Why this one line? Because it proves you are a liar. You’ve gone past the point of offensive, past the point of stupid. Now you outright lie. You weren’t trying to stop a pointless discussion. You thought you could make fools of the posts offered and then continued to offer your opinions on them.
Then when I wrote back you continued on and on. You just couldn’t drop it. Your ego overcame any common sense you may have and resulted in post after post of ignorant name calling non reasoned tripe! You seem to be almost foaming at the mouth now. Less sense, disjointed sentences, more senseless thoughts showing …
I am not going to waist my precious time and written words on you anymore - not worth it. So don't bother answering me, I am putting you on ignore.
Thank you. Talking about twisting words, notice how I quoted yours and you just write back by saying things I never said? My last post wasn’t to you. I was willing to leave it alone, but you still had to continue, didn’t you. I’ll bet you any amount of money you like. Whether you put this on ignore or not, you’ll be reading this. Bye Colomba.
You couldn’t not read this, could you?
reply
share
loredanaghidarcea
16 years ago
real hiflyer: I am sorry to hear that there are such irresponsible people out there as to porpusley hurt animals. I was esspecially rolling my eyes at one director's argument that the killing of a horse is justifed because it was necessary to his art ... :(( Horses are noble animals who have helped and accompanied mankind throught our history. Too bad this is the thanks they get.
I just intend to comment on this small thing. You say:
"Another movie had an outdoor market where one person was cutting the heads off ducks. One after another after another …"
Now obviously I do not know the film in question nor the scene you speak of. Also I'm going to assume you're an American or at the very least come from a well develpoed country. Well, in countries where agriculture and animal breeding is the major occupation, which is the case for my country, there are open markets dedicted to "live birds" which is to say that people go there to buy birds for consumption which are still alive. They either take it home alive, prefering to kill it themselves or have the seller kill it for them. Now at these markets the sellers have authorizations and have breeded birds all of their lives ... Anyway, my point being if this was the case in the movie the director might not actually have arranged the whole scene but instead the killing of ducks was incidental to the scene and he simply took the opportunity to show it. Does that make sense? I don't abelieve that to be the same as actualy buying an animal, place it on a set and then kill it ...
anyway, just my two cents.
reply
share
real_hiflyer
16 years ago
loredanaghidarcea,
You're two cents are worth as much as anyone else's. Let’s title these comments to reflect what we’re talking about now. Apparently the preceding posts are finished with.
I was talking about abuse of animals in film, intentionally staged or otherwise. You're right, a director might not do anything more than show what would happen to these animals anyway. You could make the same argument about any farm, or live market, or slaughter house scene. But cruelty is cruelty and abuse is abuse, whatever the circumstances. Just because you breed an animal doesn't mean it's right to kill it. I personally find it sickening to watch whatever the circumstances. I believe that all animals have an inherent right to be treated well. I don’t care if they’ve been bred for generations for slaughter or not. Obviously most people don’t agree with me.
I live in North America like you, and most of the mass killing factories here are even more abhorrent than the duck example. Chickens in rows are hung upside down with the hope that the electrical charge in water their heads are forced through will stun them right before decapitation. Often this doesn't happen because they're frantically struggling and their heads never make it to the water. Cows have a bolt punch into their foreheads and this is done in an enclosed environment of terror generated by the carnage going on all around them. Pigs are often hung upside down by their hind legs and their throats slit. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs are. Their capacity to understand what's going on around and to them is therefore heightened. In the Philippines, Korea, and increasingly in China, for example, they cage dogs in containers running up walls to the ceilings before killing, skinning, and eating them. Most people are revolted by even the thought of a dog being treated like this. When our North American countries complained in the past about this treatment, these countries quite rightfully asked how we justified doing exactly the same things to the species' of animals we've decided it's okay to do this to. End of complaint, end of argument.
What I’ve mentioned so far is kind in comparison to a lot of what’s going on. If you want to find out you can. What I find hypocritical is that most people are perfectly content to buy the finished products without giving the process a second thought. Many could never do it themselves, but are happy to just not think of where that steak or chicken leg, or pork pie they’re eating originated from.
I became a vegetarian as a teenager in a house full of meat eaters. My parents didn’t like it and I knew of no other vegetarians at the time. I just thought that animals are beautiful. A gift to be cared for. And if I could never harm one for any reason then how could I ever justify having someone else doing it for me. Something else that worried me a great deal was this. If I was willing to block off a part of my mind that knew this wasn’t right, then how much easier would it be to slip other things into that same dark place. How did I know that this slippery slope wouldn’t involve more things as time went by.
What kind of a person did I want to be? One who attempted to learn and to grow. Or one who knew better yet ignored it, just because whatever ‘it’ was was easier.
It was harder back then to apply these things. Even now that I know with a certainty it was right, it would be easier to go with the flow. I don’t have all of life figured out and don’t claim to. Without a doubt I know I’m right about this. Cruelty to any living being is just plain wrong. To kill for any other reason than starvation is just plain wrong.
In some parts of the world, mainly poor areas, people still have to kill to live. We here, do not. Even in those poor areas there is no justification for cruelty being involved in any part of the process.
A lot of people could not care less about any of this. If you look into what has been done in movies it will shock you and make you sick. A great many people value a dollar over any thought of civility to either animal or people. Look at the rate at which we’re killing each other.
This is how I feel about all this. If cruelty just for the sake of a movie scene bothers you, as it does, maybe this’ll help you extend that feeling. If there’s a choice to do harm, or to not, in any facet of your life, that’s for you to decide. The saddest thing I find is that every time we decide against considering the effect our actions have on animals, it’s they who always have to pay the price.
reply
share
loredanaghidarcea
16 years ago
"Just because you breed an animal doesn't mean it's right to kill it." - well, I don't necesarily agree with this. People make their living off of buying animals, feeding them and killing them to sell the meat. As much as I dislike the idea of any living thing suffering, I do understand that the market itself supports a great deal of families that would otherwise be left without a livelyhood.
I do no live in North America. I live in Romania (a country in the S-E of Europe). I do agree that animals have the right to be treated well and except for the production farms, they are. I remember my granddad taking me to the country, where he was born and ask me to pick up plums for a small pig that didn't seem to want eat anything else. He would hand feed them to it and have long philosophical discussions with it. That didn't mean that come Christmas ... well, you know. There is a sort of communion with the animals in the country that I don't think people in the city (myself included) understand. They see this animals as a important and essential part of their lives. They serve a porpuse. Cruelty does not have a place in this mindframe.
Also I really don't see what porpuse chikens or domestic pigs might serve in the wild. Like it or not, we all serve a porpuse (well, some might argue the planet might be better off without mankind but that's another story) and I just don't see how these animals might fit in to this if it is not as food. Not that porpuse ever stopped people for driving extinct an eintre species. As far as I know the wolf has suffered this fate in North America, despite serving a very vital function: that of clearing the forest of dead animals and such. I remember Andie McDowell being asked what she thought about the wolf problem in North America and she responded: I'm not worried about the wolf. I'm worried about the puma. The only question on my mind was: Why aren't you worried for both? Aren't wolves cool enough to worry about these days?!? Sorry, really went beyond the scope of the post. It just annoyed me to no end. Especially since I find wolves extermely fascinating.
Returning to the problem at hand. I do agree. People can live without meat. No doubt about that. But we, as a species, are not creatures of neccesity only. We are creatures of comfort and pleasure as well. We could well live without cars or planes, diamonds and television, to name but a few. But we don't! And like it or not, a pork stake will always be among the pleasures of life for some people.
ps: I remember watching Baraka and they showed a chicken foctory at some point. You might want to see it (not only for that ... it a beautiful movie) It made me sick. Obviously, production was key, fast bands of little chicks ... On second thought, better if you don't watch it!!!!!!!!
reply
share
Colomba
16 years ago
My last comment to your useless rant - you are an Idiot, with too much time on your hands. Get a job, or help in Humane society shelters, like I do, instead of posting useless, endless rants that nobody reads ( I sure don't)! Person, that posts long rants clearly has nothing smart to say. And you really don't.
Now, excuse me, I need to go and donate my time to people and animals in need.
And you, off you go on ignore.
P.S I just looked at few of your other posts. You come here primarily to attack people and put them down. That's a clear indication of a mental problem and low self-esteem (your screen name screams it!) You are trying to <<rule>> and patronize posters on a public board. Of well, not a first male with inferiority complex ( and some other unmentionable one...) on IMDB. Moving on...
BTW, men that eat only veggies, under perform in bed.
http://www.rusactors.ru/h/haritonov_a/05.shtml
reply
share
real_hiflyer
16 years ago
Coldumba,
You promised you wouldn't reply anymore. I was taking more time to respond to your delusions in an effort to help you get to a stage when you could actually reply to what was written, rather than babbble on about what was not.What happened to your ignore list? I absolutely realised earlier that you could build a house in that vast empty space between your ears.
... instead of posting ... that nobody reads ( I sure don't)!)...
Okay, so you sure don't read them?
... P.S I just looked at few of your other posts...
And you so much don't read them you now go looking for more?
Thanks. You just became my biggest fan. So now you realise I'm never sarcastic unless it's in response to those who initiate the attitude in the first place. That's a relief. Please read them slowly. They're on subjects you haven't commented on and look at the trouble you've had making sense here.
I hope you're not going to the humane society to start work on another coat. Are the staff there okay about letting you back out of your cage when it's time to go home?
What's with the sex comments? Do you associate animal cruelty with sex, or is this just the best you could come up with for a parting shot? Do you admit to people your high school education consisted of spending the final five years repeating grade six?
BTW, I'm not surprised to hear that you have problems with men in bed. But I am shocked that you'd be honest enough to admit to it. FYI, It's not the vegetarian thing that's your problem, just remember to turn off the lights.
Last let me apologize if I got your introduction of the sex stuff wrong. I'm sorry if you've fallen in love with me, but let's face it, you're just not my type. Like they say, it's not me ... it's you.
reply
share
suzannereilman
7 years ago
@real_hiflyer..I realize that this is now 6+ years after the fact, but having just discovered 'Goya's Ghosts', I came to see various discussions on questions about the film on these msg boards(as I believe MOST people do)...After reading through what seems like dozens of back and forth posts between yourself and this 'Columba'person, I feel compelled to state a thank you for your determination to try to 'keep it classy'and on point...I was very disturbed( though I know it's none of my business), with'Columba's' repeated use of 'ass','idiot', and ESPECIALLY ' retarded' at ANY person, or opinion...There...I feel a teeny bit better, end of rant..! ?? :)
reply
share