Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two seconds to death.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Two seconds to death.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 18:26:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
discussion on featuring photos showing death / torture
  • I agree. I'm opposed to bullfighting, too. But both involve people killing animals, and the best way to fight against bullfighting is to publicize images with pathos like this one, which touch people in their hearts more than prose descriptions of the victim's suffering can. In terms of slaughtering, anyone who eats meat but can't bear to witness a slaughter ought to become a vegetarian, so in that case, too, I think that it's important for people to see what we're doing to animals. That's the analogy to me, not that slaughtering and bullfighting are the same, which they are not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is such a strawman, Ikan, twice over. Slaughterhouses are not run for the enjoyment of seeing animals getting tortured and killed. And the vegetarian stuff, please. As for your moral grounds argument, you personally got bullied into withdrawing the SF windows pic because of.. "privacy issues"? What is that if not a moral argument? Obviously nothing illegal was done, otherwise the pic wouldn't be on Commons, so please explain to me how the morality of personal privacy compares against the morality regarding animal cruelty? Many thanks in advance. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't "bullied" into doing anything. I simply thought about things and made a decision. If you think that making an analogy between showing what happens at slaughterhouses and showing what happens at bullfights is too much of a stretch, analogizing that to people's rights to privacy is truly irrelevant. I don't see how you can feature a photo that you believe violates people's rights to privacy as a way of dramatizing the right of privacy for people to think about it. However, showing the brutalization of a bull in the ring can indeed have the effect of generating or strengthening opposition to bullfighting, and if you don't see how, nothing I post here could get you to see it. Similarly, seeing images of animals being slaughtered can have an effect on viewers. For the record, I am not a vegetarian, but I do believe that anyone who cannot bear to witness a slaughter - which I have witnessed, repeatedly, when I was living in rural Malaysia - should be a vegetarian. I do not like to see images of bullfighting, but I don't think I or other viewers should be spared them, and since I've already stated my position on the "sport" above, I don't need to repeat it here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstood my argument in a different way, too. I don't condemn all moral arguments against showing or featuring photographs. However, I consider this one misguided, for the reasons I've stated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said I was against slaughterhouse pictures. Certainly not based on moral grounds. I also don't agree that anyone unable to witness a slaughter should be vegetarian simply because we could equally well (even better) argue if you can't catch game you should become a vegetarian. Equally nonsensical. Anyway, on the moral questions to me it boils down to this: a really big percentage of the population agrees that bullfighting is nothing short of barbaric, they need no convincing or reminders. To me featuring a picture also means that it has some kind of significance - and, again, according to my own reasoning, there are subjects that need no glorification because the societal consensus already existing. Similarly I would never vote support in a girl getting circumcised, on an ISIS execution (not even if there's a very compelling and personal sotry that comes with it). None of these need to be elevated now to any kind of significance, while we're living in in a world where these are everyday occurences. But that's just me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point of view and thank you for explaining it, but I think the very fact that bullfighting still exists and is legal in some countries is a pretty strong countervailing fact, showing that pressure needs to be increased to ban it. Also, it's OK if you disagree with my point on meat-eating, but my point of view is, if you are unable to emotionally tolerate witnessing a slaughter, you should become a vegetarian, because eating meat means that animal lives have to be taken for you and therefore, the animal had to be slaughtered for you to be able to eat its meat even though the slaughter happened out of your sight and hearing. It's to me an unfortunate part of urban and suburban living that people can have the luxury of thinking that meat comes in supermarket packages, not from an animal that was alive and killed for you. Making that equivalent to an argument about whether you are physically able and skilled enough to catch game is irrelevant to my moral argument, and I think that you need to understand the basis for someone else's argument in order to sincerely disagree with it. But I do get your analogy with female genital mutilation and IS murders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also understood your point perfectly, Ikan Kekek, just skipped a few steps in my reply. That's my failure. Let me just quickly go back to your argument that someone not being able to witness a slaughter should become a vegetarian. If we were to grade "meat awareness" I can think of 4 different categories along your line of thought: 1. Someone who knows meat = animals but can't accept slaughter for what it is. 2. Someone who can accept but not witness a slaughter in order to get meat. 3. Someone who can witness a slaughter but won't be able to kill an animal themselves. 4. Someone willing to kill animals for their meat. You posit that 2) should become vegetarian, because [reasons]. My question here is why not 4? Why should you be a meat eater if you can't bring yourself to push a button, shoot a gun, cut a neck, cut off a head, stomp or do anything else to get your protein? What makes witnessing a slaughter so special compared to getting the meat yourself? At the same time 1) is where I think the line to vegetarianism should (and actually do) lie. If you can't accept that animals killed for your food, don't eat them, regardless whether you could do it yourself or could watch it or not. I don't think it gets any simpler than that.
At the same time, my counter argument was about that if you think emotional inability disqualifies someone from eating meat why shouldn't physical disability do the same? In a situation where you have 2 people, one who can physically catch an animal for food but is unable to kill it, and another one who's unable to catch anything but has absolutely no issues killing anything and dismantling the carcass, you say 1) should become a vegetarian but 2) is fine in the ranks of the meat eaters. Pushing it even further 1) might even be willing to kill the animal, just literally not able to handle blood/insides while 2) can be someone who refuses to kill anything but has no problem seeing all the gore. According to you the latter is still more entitled to eat meat than the one who catches and kills it.
In short my issue was that you made up some arbitrary categories along the lines that supported your argument about said categories. -- KennyOMG (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Well argued. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Two_seconds_to_death.jpg&oldid=611868494"