Originally Posted by reio-ta
That's the stupidest thing I've EVER read on this forum. There is a big difference between killing for killing sake, which Sony did, and killing for food. It's damn well Sony's responsibility and duty to its customers from making fun of a poor animal which was killed for their amusement. I hope this really hurts Sony much more than its failing PS3 for this dumb stunt. When on a farm, you're killing the animal for food. You have a responsibility to also kill the animal humanly, so it doesn't suffer. This isn't always done, but you can pay extra if that really harms bothers you, or kill your own to EAT. The Indians, for example, along with the Eskimos, would pray to their gods and give thanks to the animal for giving up its life so they could live. Does Sony need to perform mock and for FUN, yeah ha ha so funny to kill an animal and dance around it, in order to survive as a company? If so, Sony is in big time trouble!
Not contradictory at all. One is done of fake, drawn polygons. The other is the senseless killing of a REAL animal. Maybe you shouldn't play games if you can't tell the difference between killing real people and animals, with "killing" drawings? My wife is nearly PETA like with her respect for animals. Yet she'll play games like Shadow of the Colossus, which no real animals were hurt but depict fake ones which are. Ever notice that in movies they now say "no real animal was hurt in making of this film and all animal scenes featuring real animals were supervised the Humane Society"?
I think it's really sad that our society has become so ignorant that "normal"/"regular" people can't tell the difference between fantasy depictions of an event and when the actual event is taking place.
How many cattle were killed because "they were no longer of any use" after Mad Cow's Disease was detected in them? Those cattle were still alive and they would have lived a long time on their own. Life for life's sake, let's not kill them, right? I mean, they take up space, sure we domesticated those animals and raised them for the express purpose of food or milk, but they were still perfectly fine, alive, and would have lived a while.
I doubt you had any complaint about those "senseless killings." Certainly, no one ate those cattle. Millions upon millions of cattle, butchered because they were no longer of any use to us. I bet you didn't even bat an eye.
Now you're outraged about a single boar?
Meh. I'm as outraged as I was about the cattle. Which is not at all. Animals are there. If it improves our quality of life by entertaining us or if it improves our life by feeding us, I don't really see the difference. We're better, it's dead. Plain and simple.
Personally, I think the genetic manipulation of chickens to the point where they are simply big hunks of white breastmeat with heads in metal boxes that wait for death is far more grotesque.
Had any Chick-Fi-let recently?