Search results

I'm talking about the original.

Please link the evidence so I can see it.

I still disagree with this for the reason that the intent of the act being watched determines the justification from getting pleasure from it. I think we'd both agree that enjoying a nature show of a lioness eating a gazelle life is fine, but enjoying a show of some perverse UPer trapping a...

To me using the word cruelty to describe that video is a misnomer because the coon-pitcher didn't act in indifference or pleasure. He acted out of defense and acted appropriately to an animal that threatened him and his dog. You could say that we, the watchers, are largely indifferent and get...

context.

Because it'd be an unnecessary act of violence vs a defensive one. But if there were a hypothetical situation where someone's dog was being attacked and the only option available was a flame thrower followed by a beefy super soaker, then I suppose it'd be ok. At that point we'd be in saw...

No. But if there were a hypothetical situation where someone's dog was being attacked and the only option available was a flame thrower followed by a beefy super soaker, then I suppose it'd be ok. At that point we'd be in saw levels of weird games.

Biggest reason you shouldn't care is that racoon was probably just fine. If it was tossed out of a 5 story window I would've supported censoring it. But down a flight of stairs? That racoon was out attacking harassing dogs and knocking over trash cans before the hour was up.

Picasso, a_skeleton_03, Debating this issue expired with the polls. There's no more face to save because the faces have been long worn out by Travolta and Cage.