Danish radio host beats rabbit to death with bicycle pump live on the air. Evil?

[Forknight]

http://news.sky.com/story/1490826/radio-boss-defends-killing-rabbit-live-on-air

So... this happened.  Apparently this guy beat a rabbit to death with a bicycle pump live on the air for the purpose of creating a dialog about why we see some animals, mainly the ones we tend to eat, differently than others.  They basically came out and said that they anticipated outrage, which means that they aired the story to get listeners, which means that they beat a rabbit to death so that more people would know about their show.  Not for nutritional value, not because it was sick and had to be put down, but for fucking ratings.  This guy wanted to make a point about animal welfare "for all animals" so he kills an animal to make his point.  That is profoundly fucked up logic to me.  

Is this an immoral act?  I know that clubbing is probably the most humane way to kill a rabbit, but that seems to me to be only necessary when you're eating the things.  I also know that we don't apply moral rules to animals because they cannot abide them.  It just seems like so wrong of a thing to do that I can't even think of a valid argument for why this approach should be the one taken above all other potential ways of stimulating a conversation.  This is all putting aside the fact that the term "discussion" means basically the opposite of beating something to death.  

Take an example of chicks.  We all know what happens to them on industrial farms thanks to that stomach churning gif of them being fed into a shredder.  That part is gross, and yes I understand that there's a reason why they do that, but it doesn't feel as outright egregious as if they created a live-feed on their website showing a 24-7 stream of chicks being shoved into the shredder in order to generate more traffic.  When you take it to the level of trying to claim that this is a website dedicated to the welfare of all animals, then you cross over into the bizarro realm that is so far beyond my ability to comprehend that I have to come here to get smarter people than myself to explain it to me.

Quick disclaimer: I'm not an animal rights activist.  I eat meat like it's going to be outlawed any minute.  I do get that industrial farms can be inhospitable places for the animals that live there and I am sympathetic to the argument that we should treat our meat more humanely prior to slaughter inasmuch as is possible. 
 

[labmath2]

In his defense he ate the rabbit.

[Forknight]

In his defense he ate the rabbit.

True but he wasn't doing it just to eat the rabbit.  It would be one thing if he were filming a documentary on how to properly slaughter a rabbit, or if he were to film the process of rabbits being actually slaughtered in a factory.  The latter would detract from the sensationalism he's trying to generate though, because they actually have machines in most of the slaughterhouses that do this very quickly and in about as humane a way as possible.  I just think it's wrong to kill a rabbit to boost your radio show, and am disgusted by the ridiculousness of the claim that it was done in the name of animal welfare.  

[Better Future]

I think he made a valid point and I think he made it well. He could have explained how humans make arbitrary value judgements about different species, but I doubt that would have had much of an impact.

 

I would be interested to see the conversations that this event has provoked. 

[Forknight]

I think he made a valid point and I think he made it well. He could have explained how humans make arbitrary value judgements about different species, but I doubt that would have had much of an impact.

 

I would be interested to see the conversations that this event has provoked. 

In what sense is it valid to start an earnest discussion about animal welfare by audio streaming the clubbing of a rabbit with a bike pump to boost your show?    That seems rather... counterproductive.

[Lingum]

No one changes their mind when they are deliberately provoked. Yet, some people (narcissists, contrarians, media personalities, politicians) use this approach exclusively. It's just a predictable way of making people resistant to fact and issues unsolvable, by upping the stakes. This tells us it's not really about having a rational debate, but rather fulfilling some personal need.

[J. D. Stembal]

As a person who has killed animals in order to eat them, I'm not sure how beating a rabbit to death promotes animal welfare. How do you define what animal welfare is when we can't communicate with them? Perhaps some animals want to be eaten like the talking bovine in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe? How will we ever know one way or the other?

 

I say continue eating the tastiest ones. It's APA and not UPB.

 

By the way, the reason chicks get put into the shredder is because they were born male, and hence, cannot lay eggs. The lucky ones become hormone injected abominations that can hardly stand and are slaughtered for their breast meat, the "lean meat" that is touted as healthy. It usually finds its way into a McNugget or a Chipotle wrap.

 

And no, clubbing an animal is not necessary to end its life. Breaking its neck would have been the most efficient way to kill it.

[AncapFTW]

This makes as much sense as him saying "does it make sense to keep dogs in Kennels?  Tune in next weak when we go and visit one I locked in a box barely big enough for it a week ago."

 

If you want to create "a dialog about why we see some animals, mainly the ones we tend to eat, differently than others", then talk about how pets are treated, then food animals are treated.

[Donnadogsoth]

http://news.sky.com/story/1490826/radio-boss-defends-killing-rabbit-live-on-air

 

So... this happened.  Apparently this guy beat a rabbit to death with a bicycle pump live on the air for the purpose of creating a dialog about why we see some animals, mainly the ones we tend to eat, differently than others.  They basically came out and said that they anticipated outrage, which means that they aired the story to get listeners, which means that they beat a rabbit to death so that more people would know about their show.  Not for nutritional value, not because it was sick and had to be put down, but for fucking ratings.  This guy wanted to make a point about animal welfare "for all animals" so he kills an animal to make his point.  That is profoundly fucked up logic to me.  

 

Is this an immoral act?  I know that clubbing is probably the most humane way to kill a rabbit, but that seems to me to be only necessary when you're eating the things.  I also know that we don't apply moral rules to animals because they cannot abide them.  It just seems like so wrong of a thing to do that I can't even think of a valid argument for why this approach should be the one taken above all other potential ways of stimulating a conversation.  This is all putting aside the fact that the term "discussion" means basically the opposite of beating something to death.  

 

Take an example of chicks.  We all know what happens to them on industrial farms thanks to that stomach churning gif of them being fed into a shredder.  That part is gross, and yes I understand that there's a reason why they do that, but it doesn't feel as outright egregious as if they created a live-feed on their website showing a 24-7 stream of chicks being shoved into the shredder in order to generate more traffic.  When you take it to the level of trying to claim that this is a website dedicated to the welfare of all animals, then you cross over into the bizarro realm that is so far beyond my ability to comprehend that I have to come here to get smarter people than myself to explain it to me.

 

Quick disclaimer: I'm not an animal rights activist.  I eat meat like it's going to be outlawed any minute.  I do get that industrial farms can be inhospitable places for the animals that live there and I am sympathetic to the argument that we should treat our meat more humanely prior to slaughter inasmuch as is possible. 

 

 

There are laws against animal cruelty, aren't there?  The rabbit's death wasn't cruel, so what of it?  It was killed for entertainment purposes, to entertain audiences, just as other rabbits are killed to entertain the palate.

[AncapFTW]

There are laws against animal cruelty, aren't there?  The rabbit's death wasn't cruel, so what of it?  It was killed for entertainment purposes, to entertain audiences, just as other rabbits are killed to entertain the palate.

So beating something to death with a blunt object isn't cruel in your opinion?

 

I guess it doesn't matter if the government gives convicted murderers lethal injection or has a group of cops billy-club them to death, then.

[DaviesMa]

A quick google search confirms that clubbing is the most humane way other than lethal injection to kill a rabbit however this only applies if the Rabbit is killed outright on the first strike. The Sky News article states that he hit it three times with a bicycle pump before wringing its neck, suggesting that he did not kill the rabbit on the first blow and possibly not even on the third. (I would suggest a bicycle pump would not be heavy enough for the job.)

 

I find it difficult as  I am disgusted by anyone who could kill an animal in this way, (one blow would be more palatable) but I also enjoy meat tremendously and realise that I am indirectly responsible for a the deaths of many animals.

[Donnadogsoth]

So beating something to death with a blunt object isn't cruel in your opinion?

 

I guess it doesn't matter if the government gives convicted murderers lethal injection or has a group of cops billy-club them to death, then.

 

No need for the snark.  A beating death is cruel in inverse proportion to the skill with which it is administered.  One solid blow well-aimed could kill a rabbit, and 30 weak, ill-aimed ones might not.  Capital punishments are decided on in part due to their reliability.

[Forknight]

There are laws against animal cruelty, aren't there?  The rabbit's death wasn't cruel, so what of it?  It was killed for entertainment purposes, to entertain audiences, just as other rabbits are killed to entertain the palate.

 

The legality of animal cruelty is irrelevant.  The point I was trying to make was that I think killing something as a promotional vehicle seems unnecessarily cruel and therefore wrong.  Not the physical act of killing the rabbit, because if I had a problem with that I could never justify eating meat, but the intention and spirit in which it was done.  Then there's the strange contradiction of efficiency where he was much more brutal than most industrial farms in how he killed it.  If you're going to demonstrate the brutality of rabbit slaughter standards to make a point about how it should be more humane in the industrial farms, you should at least be able to show a technique more efficient than the people you're complaining about.

 

To emphasize my point using his logic, replace rabbit with a dog / cat.  Would it be perfectly acceptable to quickly bash in the brains of a dog or cat or your favorite cuddly household pet with a giant hammer to promote your personal discussion about animal abuse, as long as you bbq'd and ate the dog or cat afterward?

 

 

 

[labmath2]

If you bash in your dogs head to wat it, you will get no complaints from me.

[Better Future]

In what sense is it valid to start an earnest discussion about animal welfare by audio streaming the clubbing of a rabbit with a bike pump to boost your show? 

 

In the sense that most people do not respond to rational discussion. Most people respond to their own emotions. Which was the intention of this event. It may not achieve the desired outcome but I can see the logic behind it.

[Donnadogsoth]

The legality of animal cruelty is irrelevant.  The point I was trying to make was that I think killing something as a promotional vehicle seems unnecessarily cruel and therefore wrong.  Not the physical act of killing the rabbit, because if I had a problem with that I could never justify eating meat, but the intention and spirit in which it was done.  Then there's the strange contradiction of efficiency where he was much more brutal than most industrial farms in how he killed it.  If you're going to demonstrate the brutality of rabbit slaughter standards to make a point about how it should be more humane in the industrial farms, you should at least be able to show a technique more efficient than the people you're complaining about.

 

To emphasize my point using his logic, replace rabbit with a dog / cat.  Would it be perfectly acceptable to quickly bash in the brains of a dog or cat or your favorite cuddly household pet with a giant hammer to promote your personal discussion about animal abuse, as long as you bbq'd and ate the dog or cat afterward?

 

 

 

 

Yes, that would be acceptable, slaughtering your pet for a barbecue.

[Forknight]

People don't seem to be making a distinction between killing something to eat it, and killing something for promotional purposes but then eating it afterward.    

 

If you bash in your dogs head to wat it, you will get no complaints from me.

Great but that wasn't what I was asking.  Would it be okay for me to livestream beating a dog to death with a rock to generate sensationalism around my upcoming album, as long as I ate it afterward?  

[Donnadogsoth]

People don't seem to be making a distinction between killing something to eat it, and killing something for promotional purposes but then eating it afterward.    

 

Great but that wasn't what I was asking.  Would it be okay for me to livestream beating a dog to death with a rock to generate sensationalism around my upcoming album, as long as I ate it afterward?  

 

What if you got hired at a slaughterhouse for a day, so you could have your friend videotape yourself slaughtering hogs, for the sake of promoting your upcoming album?

[Better Future]

People don't seem to be making a distinction between killing something to eat it, and killing something for promotional purposes but then eating it afterward.

 

Would you make a distinction between a hungry man killing something to eat and a man killing something for dinner, to celebrate his birthday?

[thebeardslastcall]

I don't think the rabbit knows the difference of whether it was filmed or not and why. The videotaping of it can give extra value to the rabbit's death, but I don't see how it makes the killing of the rabbit more immoral, if you assume it's immoral. If it's not immoral without the videotaping then adding more value to the rabbit's death would be a sort of service to other animals (in theory). His desire to videotape the killing of an animal did make him kill the animal a bit crudely however. So the videotaping itself wasn't the issue I see, but that his desire to videotape had him lower his standards for execution to make a point becoming part of the problem.

 

If he really cared about the rabbit he wouldn't have killed it and volunteered it for such a sacrifice "for the cause". He'd have, as someone suggested, gone to a slaughter house or the like, to show how it was done. I also think people focus way too much on the actual moments leading up to death and forget that many of these animals live in misery and discomfort for their entire lives due to industrial farming practices. If you eat meat from these places it's kind of sending a mixed signal, like "we should do something about this, but I'm going to keep eating my rabbits and burgers." He's expecting others to be more moral than him while also pretending to be an agent for morality. In that respect I don't like what he did, but I can't say it's any worse than most burgers or chicken meat eaten in America. He at the least had the guts to show it and not hide what was going on like many farmers and slaughter houses, which hate cameras anywhere near their businesses.