Skip

Dead Puppies
February 3, 2003 11:25 AM   Subscribe


 
Somebody give those guys a comb.
posted by tippiedog at 11:31 AM on February 3, 2003


"what if it was an oversize novelty check?"

[this is good]
posted by machaus at 11:32 AM on February 3, 2003


I'm not sure I want to click on this. Can we have a more telling description, please?
posted by muckster at 11:32 AM on February 3, 2003


I was thinking a sock full of quarters.
posted by cardboard at 11:33 AM on February 3, 2003


Oh, great – now I'm in love with a girl in a furry hat who could crush a baby to death.
posted by nicwolff at 11:36 AM on February 3, 2003


That is just the question being asked of people in that movie. Answers vary.
posted by scottymac at 11:36 AM on February 3, 2003


About U$1000.

Probly do it for U$500, if wasn't like, really cute.
posted by signal at 11:40 AM on February 3, 2003


link no go.
maybe for better.
nice poll, though.
posted by Busithoth at 11:41 AM on February 3, 2003


Muckster: it's a series of people answering the question posed in the post.

In college, my friends and I used to play a variation of this, where you would pose outlandish situations and a monetary value, and see if anyone would accept it. I had one friend who would stick the hand of a corpse into a salad shooter for $50. He's now a doctor.
posted by turaho at 11:41 AM on February 3, 2003


No actual puppy-killing is performed, don't worry.
posted by tweebiscuit at 11:41 AM on February 3, 2003


Oh, and I hope you guys watched all of the video. The REAL punchline comes in about halfway through...
posted by tweebiscuit at 11:42 AM on February 3, 2003


Kitten-killing, however, is done for free every day.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:43 AM on February 3, 2003


tweebiscuit: Yeah, but we don't want to give anything away.

By the way [this is good]
posted by turaho at 11:46 AM on February 3, 2003


I once killed a litter of kittens with my bare hands. I was in Indonesia visiting my wife who was doing research at the edge of the rainforest. A village cat had had kittens near her research hut and was subsequently eaten by a large monitor lizard. The kittens were not weaned and would have surely perished otherwise. I drowned them in the ocean. I remember doing it like it was any other task.
posted by ALvard at 11:47 AM on February 3, 2003


I don't think I could kill a puppy for anything (or kitten, either) but I used to play the same game with my friends as Turaho did, except ours usually revolved around eating gross things. Too bad we didn't pitch the idea to TV producers.
posted by jennyb at 11:56 AM on February 3, 2003


I had one friend who would stick the hand of a corpse into a salad shooter for $50. He's now a doctor.

Well, at least he's not a chef...
posted by staggernation at 11:59 AM on February 3, 2003


I can see how someone would have less of a problem killing a baby than a puppy, since the puppy is climbing up on you and being playful and cute and the baby's probably just lying there..

</evil thoughts>
posted by Space Coyote at 12:02 PM on February 3, 2003


This was hilarious. Apparently they're an internet-based sketch comedy group, which I suppose had to happen eventually. Momento: The College Years isn't as funny as the puppies, but it's still quite good.
posted by Gary at 12:09 PM on February 3, 2003


great link; thanks.
posted by fishfucker at 12:09 PM on February 3, 2003


That was way more interesting than I thought it would be. I loved the reactions when they did the followup and there was actually a puppy and a giant novelty check.
posted by mosch at 12:10 PM on February 3, 2003


Depends. Do I get to eat the puppy afterwards?

If I did it for food, I'd do it for free. I'm all for killing animals as long as there's a good reason. I don't think I would do it "just for fun" no matter what you paid me.
posted by bondcliff at 12:12 PM on February 3, 2003


Mirror: I'm mirroring this file temporarily right here. (I'll likely remove it soon, so grab it now and mirror it yourself if you can.)
posted by waxpancake at 12:13 PM on February 3, 2003


Somebody give those guys a comb.

Why?
posted by Satapher at 12:15 PM on February 3, 2003


"how bout for two puppies?"
posted by imaswinger at 12:18 PM on February 3, 2003


"I'd kill a bear cub though.. if it growled at me"
posted by Space Coyote at 12:20 PM on February 3, 2003


I'd do it for free.

*shrugs*
posted by dhoyt at 12:21 PM on February 3, 2003


Oh, and I hope you guys watched all of the video. The REAL punchline comes in about halfway through...

There was a punchline? This definitely isn't sketch comedy, and it's barely comedy. Does anyone know what college that is?
posted by uftheory at 12:23 PM on February 3, 2003


What is this, some stoner's psych 101 project? That's one of the more trite and vacuous moral quandaries I can think of.

*yawn*
posted by xmutex at 12:26 PM on February 3, 2003


it depends...

mine or someone else's?

(after spending an hour every morning for the last 3 mornings cleaning up liquid shit from the dog, I might not even need money...)
posted by jkaczor at 12:36 PM on February 3, 2003


"You said puppy...one million dollars" (holding up big check)

I thought it was fairly clever and not the instant-gratification one usually finds on 'net video productions. They played the horror angle particularly well.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:44 PM on February 3, 2003


I had one friend who would stick the hand of a corpse into a salad shooter for $50. He's now a doctor.

I had a friend who would kill kittens for free, and now he's a senate majority leader.
posted by BigPicnic at 12:46 PM on February 3, 2003


Er, SELF-POST? Scroll to 1.22.2003 entry. I thought that kind of thing was frowned upon.
posted by dhoyt at 12:51 PM on February 3, 2003


I've killed lots of puppies. I did it for very little money. It was called the Humane Society. We used lethal injection, and we used our bare hands to administer it.

I don't find any humor in this game at all.
posted by moonbiter at 12:52 PM on February 3, 2003


"Er, SELF-POST?"

How much money would it take to self-link Metafilter's front page to your own comedy troupe?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:58 PM on February 3, 2003


I was waiting for someone to take out their wallet:

"Well, I don't have much on me -- wait, YOU want to pay ME?"
posted by skryche at 12:59 PM on February 3, 2003


billy, is that you?
posted by anathema at 12:59 PM on February 3, 2003


[this is good]

[this is bad]
posted by machaus at 1:03 PM on February 3, 2003


I just knew it. Something this underwhelming had to be a self-link.
posted by rocketman at 1:05 PM on February 3, 2003


Knowing the basics of logrolling could have saved this post, as many other members would have probably gladly posted this. Just sayin'.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:09 PM on February 3, 2003


Most amusing. Made me wish I was back in college.

And here's the thing about self links: This was an interesting project that, were it linked by someone other than the author, would be absolutely fine on MeFi. Would it be better to ask someone else to link for you in an effort to circumnavigate the "rules"? (Not that i have EVER done such a thing).

There's a difference between sharing something with the community, and simply trolling for pageviews.
posted by aladfar at 1:12 PM on February 3, 2003


Self-link or no, I found it intesesting.
posted by brittney at 1:15 PM on February 3, 2003


Which, for those of you not in the know, is the new, hip slang for interesting.
posted by brittney at 1:17 PM on February 3, 2003


(I guess the point is: when you know damn well that you're self-linking, why not just be honest about it, or ask Matt first? I don't think anyone would've had a problem with that approach)
posted by dhoyt at 1:20 PM on February 3, 2003


That's right. You lose.
posted by rocketman at 1:20 PM on February 3, 2003


There's a difference between sharing something with the community, and simply trolling for pageviews.

I agree, but having read some of the discussion about the issue, agree with the policy that it simply has to be a universal rule to keep things sane.
posted by freebird at 1:21 PM on February 3, 2003


It is not a self link. He clearly started he made a diffent bit. He is linking to his friends.
posted by thirteen at 1:22 PM on February 3, 2003


uftheory, seems they're at Bard College
posted by leotrotsky at 1:23 PM on February 3, 2003



posted by eddydamascene at 1:27 PM on February 3, 2003


huh? Where is this "clearly stated," thirteen?
posted by anathema at 1:27 PM on February 3, 2003


I'm a little late in pointing out that our comedy troupe has a website now.

If he's a member of the troupe, I'd consider it a self link, regardless of wether he was a part of this sketch.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:29 PM on February 3, 2003


I'd gladly re-post this if it gets deleted as a self-link. This really is good stuff, and scanning dwon the front page I'd say it's the best thing that's popped up all day.

Just sayin'
posted by Space Coyote at 1:30 PM on February 3, 2003


Asking someone else to link it, while still a bit skeevy, would at least double the number of people who found it interesting enough to post. Think of it as a primitive peer-review system. Not ideal, but at least it wouldn't have been as flagrant a violation of the one guideline around here that everybody seems to agree on.

Depending on the "difference between sharing something with the community, and simply trolling for pageviews" would be an awfully vague guideline, since everybody's opinion of what's worth sharing will differ...

It is not a self link... He is linking to his friends

Puh-leeze. So, what, quonsar could post a link to Everlasting Blort, just as long as he linked to one of Madam Jujujive's posts? just an example

For what it's worth, I found the link funny, and if I'd found it independently I'd have posted it. But a self-link is a self-link is a bad idea.
posted by ook at 1:30 PM on February 3, 2003


"(if you are posting a link to something you have created or were involved with the creation of, please use the TextAd service or the mefi-projects list to announce your work instead of posting a self-linking MetaFilter thread.)"

I just received a mefi-projects mailer today and visited every link. That's how it works.
posted by Dick Paris at 1:37 PM on February 3, 2003


huh? Where is this "clearly stated," thirteen?


On the weblog entry that is being called out. The "one of which I made" is linked to a different piece than is shown here. He followed the spirit of the law as I would interpret it. There was a time when most of the links here were of this sort. There is no reason for anyone to get their nose bent over this. I doubt Twee is benefiting from this in any way.

1.22.2003

I'm a little late in pointing out that our comedy troupe has a webster now. For those of you who are generally loathe to follow links from weblogs, I'll sweeten the deal -- the site has multiple video sketches available for download, one of which I made. I

posted by thirteen at 1:37 PM on February 3, 2003


Maybe it should have been "clearly stated" on the front page along with the post.
posted by anathema at 1:41 PM on February 3, 2003


So you're also not allowed to know the person you're linking to in real life? Is that how I'm to interpret some of the attitudes

I'd better check to make sure I'm not in the same bowling leage as somebody to whom I am linking in the future, then.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:47 PM on February 3, 2003


Metatalk (sort of).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:49 PM on February 3, 2003


I'd better check to make sure I'm not in the same bowling leage as somebody to whom I am linking in the future, then.

But would it be okay to post to something great they did for your league (like bowl a perfect game), even if you had no part of it?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:51 PM on February 3, 2003


A story I heard somewhere:

At a turn of the (19th) century dinner party of well to do friends of Winston Churchill, a question to the group was raised "would you make love to a stranger for 1 million pounds?"

Of course all were scandalized, but eventually Lady Penelope spoke up, "yes, I believe I might sleep with a stranger for 1 million pounds".

Winston then took out a 5 pound note and asked her if she'd do it for that price.

Shocked, she said, "Winston, what kind of woman do you take me for!"

"We've already established what kind of woman you are," he said coolly, "now we're just haggling over the price."
posted by Jos Bleau at 1:57 PM on February 3, 2003


I think tweebiscuit prolly ought to have known better. One might consider this a pattern of behavior at this point.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:03 PM on February 3, 2003


Various Unrelated Links
Dead Puppies Society
Marylin Manson Kills Puppies on Stage
Dead Puppies Song (used in the video)
Nearly Dead Puppies
posted by blue_beetle at 2:05 PM on February 3, 2003


Ignoring the whole self-link-or-no thing (because I really don't care), I'd like to say I love some of the hipster "how yawningly pedestrian, I dare say" bluster going down. It's lovely.

It's not a "moral quandary," folks. It's the simple comedy of watching someone get all worked up and flustered.
posted by kavasa at 2:26 PM on February 3, 2003


(Bard College appears to have the market cornered on tousle-haired effeminate hipsters dufusses)
posted by dhoyt at 2:32 PM on February 3, 2003


How wonderful that we can devote half the thread to discussing whether it was alright to have the thread in the first place.

Sheesh.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:35 PM on February 3, 2003


"Simple" being the key word, there. "Obvious" also comes to mind.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 2:41 PM on February 3, 2003


My favorite has to be the girl in the beret.

"Fifty cents. Seriously."

More proof that berets are evil.
posted by botono9 at 2:53 PM on February 3, 2003


links not working with quicktime 6. that was a worthwhile download. maybe it's the security settings.
posted by asok at 3:03 PM on February 3, 2003


fff - So how much money would it take for you to kill MetaFilter with your bare hands?

This was interesting when I checked it out on the pile (also posted by tweebiscuit). Can't say I liked it much because I have a deeply rooted love for dogs, and seeing imbeciles act all cool-like when confronted with the idea of killing dogs for bucks just isn't amusing to me.

But this isn't the pile, and if any care to scroll upwards, it might do to take notice that we've been self-policing since 1999. Now which is more worthy of disdain, some wanker who flaunts the rules of the site knowingly, the people who point out that its not exactly cricket to do that, or the guy who rolls his eyes (sheesh) and admonishes us to just get over the rules, as if its his decision to be the lone policeman?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:04 PM on February 3, 2003


How wonderful that we can devote half the thread to discussing whether it was alright to have the thread in the first place.

Apparently "they" never get tired of this f^3.

The deified, contorted and honorific rituals and customs on this site make Japanese theater look downright improvisational by comparison.

Mefi this, meta that, textad this, project list that.

It's as though things are purposefully obscured so someone can have the visceral pleasure of saying "gotcha!".

The part I love is that someone spent part of their day digging through posts and bios and links to piece together the fact that this was a self-link or whatever. Doing that would have never even occurred to me, hence what makes me different than others.
posted by Ynoxas at 3:06 PM on February 3, 2003


The deified, contorted and honorific rituals and customs on this site make Japanese theater look downright improvisational by comparison.

Have you ever read this?
posted by anathema at 3:12 PM on February 3, 2003


Actually I did kill a dog with my barehands when I was about 12. I have no interest in reliving that experience. Thanks for asking though!
posted by filchyboy at 3:16 PM on February 3, 2003


if any care to scroll upwards, it might do to take notice that we've been self-policing since 1999
Mine says "You're wrong. No you're wrong!". If you are seriously asking which behavior is most worthy of disdain, then I am going to go with the people who did not drop Matt a line, and let him be the lone policeman of the site. Whining here is as useless as posting something about welcoming the dead puppy overlords. I am curious where Matt will come down on this now, as I think this post falls within his accepted guidelines historically. If I am the dummy on this one, I will be appropriately sheepish about. Count on it.
posted by thirteen at 3:16 PM on February 3, 2003


The part I love is that someone spent part of their day digging through posts and ...hence what makes me different than others.

Wrong. Get off your horse, Ynoxas. I'd seen tweebiscuit's site a few days days ago by complete coincidence and noticed the Old English comedy troupe post. Then I saw it posted here. It took about two seconds to make the connection.

Interesting that tweebiscuit has chosen not to comment on this thread.
posted by dhoyt at 3:17 PM on February 3, 2003


"The deified, contorted and honorific rituals and customs on this site make Japanese theater look downright improvisational by comparison."

You say that likes it's a bad thing.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:26 PM on February 3, 2003


thirteen, your bias is showing. I haven't seen anybody whining here except this.

I, also, am curious as to where Matt will come down on this, as I don't believe this post falls within the accepted guidelines historically. If I'm wrong, and this post survives, well okay then. We have our benchmark. But I really don't accept that the kool-kid disdain for calling out the questionable nature of this post is the standard of MetaFilter.

Ynoxas, you're absolutely right, and I'm sorry. Following links and exploring the web isn't at all what MeFi is about. (/sarcasm)
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:26 PM on February 3, 2003


And the last line of your last post was bias free? You set the tone.
posted by thirteen at 3:31 PM on February 3, 2003


13, 'wouldn't claim that it was free of bias. But it wasn't whining either. I'm not exactly sure what tone you think it set, except to say: making decisions for the rest of us is wrong. Don't do it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:36 PM on February 3, 2003


There are several variables to take into account when determining the minimum puppy-killing compensation fee, such as size and breed of the puppy, methods allowed (drowning? broken neck?), legality (will I get busted for it afterwards?), and permanence of the activity (is it being videotaped? will anyone ever find out?).

In general, I'd say around $100,000 if it's small and ugly. More if it's particular cute and/or large.
posted by waxpancake at 3:39 PM on February 3, 2003


What a coincidence, dhoyt -- I just got back!

I would address this in the MetaTalk thread, since that really is the place to do it, but since there's so much discussion here already, I'll just do it here.

First of all, the background: Yes, I'm in the comedy troupe that filmed this piece. However, in line with the strict wording of the guidelines, I neither created it nor was involved in its creation. I didn't write it, I didn't film it, I didn't edit it. I didn't even have anything to do with the website itself. For that reason, I didn't claim this was my piece.

Contrary to what has been implied, I thought quite a lot about the guidelines before posting the link, but the question of whether or not it was kosher was honestly vague. A friend of mine (who doesn't use Metafilter) created the piece in a group that I'm a member of, but I had nothing to do with its creation. At the same time, the link had been passed around to a few message boards by people who had liked it, and sparked some really interesting discussions. Since Metafilter happens to be one of the 'net communities that I'm a part of, I wanted to see what my peers had to say. We all post links because we amusing others, and that was my motivation.

I did try to logroll, but the friend I enlisted (the only other MeFi member I know well enough to ask) flaked out. I'm limited to publicly available computers at the moment, so I decided that I'd just throw caution to the wind and post it myself. Yes, in retrospect I should have e-mailed Matt first to clarify the rules, but I neglected to -- that was an oversight on my part which I admit to. I had considered asking on MeTa first as well, but figured I might as well go for it. Again, my fault.

To summarize: This was not technically a self-link, going by the guidelines, but was in a bit of a gray area. I knew that MeFi would enjoy it, but wasn't sure if it would be appropriate. I decided to give it a shot -- judging by the number of people who got mad, it looks like I made the wrong decision. So: Sorry everyone -- but at the same time, I'm glad you enjoyed the link. That was, after all, the whole point.

At this point, I wouldn't be put out if Matt deleted the thread, if that's the way he called it, but I'd also appreciate hearing his thoughts on it. I think that this issue shows that the guidelines deserve at the least a reclarification.

As for Wulfgar's comments: The inconsequential MeTa thread that you're linking to was posted a year and a half ago, when I was relatively new to MeTa, and wasn't yet aware of what should go where. If you look at the rest of my posting history, it should be clear that I've been a contributing member in good standing since then -- I'd hardly call one early mistake and one case of bad judgement out of over forty threads a pattern of behavior. If my reputation's been tarnished -- well, I just hope that the community here isn't so reactionary as to brand me with a scarlet letter just for making one mistake.

Thanks everyone -- sorry again.
posted by tweebiscuit at 3:49 PM on February 3, 2003


tweebiscuit, I would hardly call the MeTa thread I linked to inconsequential. Learning is a good thing, yes? And the pattern of behavior comment was something of a question. Why, given the response to your earlier MeTa attempt did you not email Matt before posting something of this nature if you were not "yet aware of what should go where"? Are you now?

I haven't called for your banishment, nor have I called for the deletion of this thread. I do believe that you should have known better. Whether there is any consequence of that or not isn't up to me; 'never said it was. So lets not be disingenious through defense by symapathy, 'kay? Don't sweat your rep: as a certain "that team from Washington" fan likes to say, its just a website.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:10 PM on February 3, 2003


note to tweeb: if you need anyone to do logrolling for you in the future I'll be glad to if future material is even half as good as this. It would be a shame if the illuminati were to quell links of this calibre by going over them with a magnifying glass looking for flaws.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:23 PM on February 3, 2003


Wulfgar -- I don't know why you're so dead-set on making me look the fool about this. I would continue to defend myself, but after explaining and apologizing for myself, I'd rather not respond to what I see as trolling. People like you, who don't seem to want to let honest mistakes lie, are what makes Metafilter a much more hostile environment than it should be. We're all friends here.

SpaceCoyote -- thanks!
posted by tweebiscuit at 5:18 PM on February 3, 2003


What Space Coyote said.

I thought the movie was funny as hell, and I probably wouldn't have seen it if it wasn't posted here. Thanks for the link, twee.
posted by majcher at 5:27 PM on February 3, 2003


tweebiscuit, I've no idea why you're so dead set on making those who've questioned you look the fool, unless, maybe, you're covering your ass for having done something you should have known not to do by singling someone else out as the big meany? Hhmmmm?

Knock'it the fuck off. Self linking is against the rules. You got called on it, honest mistake or not. Defending yourself by calling MetaFilter a "hostile environment" and accusing me of trolling (look it up before you claim to know what it means) is misdirection of the weakest sort.

And no, if you're going to try and use me to cover your ass from the obvious, I'm not your friend.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:39 PM on February 3, 2003


Maybe, just maybe, my Metafilter karma will come out even.
posted by tweebiscuit at 5:41 PM on February 3, 2003


That would be fine thing. (says the troll)
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:45 PM on February 3, 2003


Wulfgar, I made a judgement call, I made the wrong one, I apologized. You seem to want more than that, but you haven't yet said what that is. That's all I was getting at.

(And I know what trolling means, and I meant it.)
posted by tweebiscuit at 5:46 PM on February 3, 2003


tweebiscuit broke the rules, yes, but it's a funny video and a worthy post here. If the link was emailed to me, I would have posted it myself. I don't think this will open the floodgates, by looking at the aftermath of this one I seriously doubt anyone would wish this kind of thing on themselves. I hope it doesn't happen again, but I did enjoy the video and will leave this up.

Now on to the question: I would kill a dog for $250,000 if it were one of those small, yappy dogs that old ladies have and that make me feel like kicking down the block some times. Or if you put one in a silly suit. Could you imagine a chihuahua dressed as a mime? How could you not do it?
posted by mathowie at 6:06 PM on February 3, 2003


tweebisuit, please reread. You haven't made the wrong call (except to myself and others like-minded). This thread has survived, and as I've indicated, now sets the standard for which self linking is judged. You have apologized, and I find that perfectly acceptable EXCEPT that you singled me out as having been unfair to you. I wasn't at all. You self-linked, people objected. I pointed out that that was in your "rep" in this thread. Somehow, I'm attacking you personally? Please. You have no basis upon which to specify what I want other than not to be singled out as having posted an "inconsequential" link to what you posted before. Define inconsequential, please. I'd love to hear it.

Trolling? I think not. Were you purhaps trolling for the big fish that might bite at your comedy troups antics? Much more likely. Yet you single me out as cover fire for having done something obviously questionable. Why else, unless its to cover your ass by misdirecting incoming fire? No, I don't have to accept that BS. I accept your apology, to the very degree of sincerity with which it was given. Further attack will be met with appropriate defense.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:10 PM on February 3, 2003


Just to lighten things up how about a joke?

Q:How do you kill rocks?

A:Put them in a burlap sack with some kittens.....


Oh, great – now I'm in love with a girl in a furry hat who could crush a baby to death.
Yeah, she was a looker, but I really fell for the one who would do it for 50¢. Seriously.
posted by elwoodwiles at 6:10 PM on February 3, 2003


Killing puppies with your bare hands is nothing. Courtney Love killed hers with one of her boobs.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:26 PM on February 3, 2003


There is not a dollar amount that could allow me to squeeze the life out of a dog, but I would not, however, have a hard time sticking the hand of a person that accepted money to kill a puppy into a blender.
posted by wuakeen at 8:11 PM on February 3, 2003


"and what are you?

A coy.

Get on the fucking truck, pal!

But I'm an animal, I have rights!

You're a baseball glove, get on the truck!"

-- Dennis Leary, on how we only want to save the cute animals.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:19 PM on February 3, 2003


Er, I couldn't click on the link, afraid to see someone actually killing a puppy. Back when we were younger, poorer and lived with a lot of roommates and cats and dogs, one of our roommates' dogs had tertiary distemper. Yep, seizures, slobbering, the whole bit. Our sobbing roommie begged my husband to put her puppy out of its misery. We had no gun, no knives big or sharp enough to do it, no drugs, no rope. He did it with his bare hands out of pity for the roommie and the poor miserable puppy. Roommie and I cried oceans of tears as we dug the hole to bury it in. I don't really see how anyone can consider that the stuff of comedy, sorry.
posted by Lynsey at 8:23 PM on February 3, 2003


nicwolff: Oh, great – now I'm in love with a girl in a furry hat who could crush a baby to death.
elwoodwiles: Yeah, she was a looker

I was wondering how they got the budget to have Britney in it.

back to elwoodwiles: but I really fell for the one who would do it for 50¢

Damn straight. She's the one you want to be with.

I would only kill a puppy to shorten its suffering. And I'd do it for free, I guess.
posted by qbert72 at 8:43 PM on February 3, 2003


Lynsey: What I wish you and anyone else that ever finds themselves in a similar circumstance would realize is that in a crisis like that there will be a vet who will help you out by humanely putting the animal down. If for some reason you have no way of paying, most vets would do it gratis for the benefit of the animal. If you can't find a vet by yourself then contact your local humane society. There are usually "friends of the shelter" with big hearts and fairly deep pockets that will fund emergency needs like this.

If you do have trouble finding a vet who would pity the animal and do a mercy euthanasia despite being unable to pay, then I would suggest you find a more hospitable place to call home. I would suggest very few vets would let an animal suffer needlessly for want of $20 to cover the injection. Those that would need to retire.

Your experience was horrifying. Arm yourself with knowledge and use it to teach others what NOT to do.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:43 PM on February 3, 2003


I don't have to strangle Metafilter with my bare hands, Wulfgur -- you and others are doing it just fine.

I repeat, sheesh.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:04 PM on February 3, 2003


What is this, some stoner's psych 101 project? That's one of the more trite and vacuous moral quandaries I can think of.

Heheh. What a load of cack that was.
posted by ed\26h at 1:43 AM on February 4, 2003


Oh, and by the way, I inadvertantly killed the website. I hadn't realized there was so much of a MeFi effect, but apparently you ran through all the bandwidth in a few hours.

Oh, the irony.
posted by tweebiscuit at 7:51 AM on February 4, 2003


i own a burmese python. it eats small mammals like rabbits. to be sure that my snake isn't harmed and to minimize rabbit suffering, i often have to kill the rabbits myself. i do it with my bare hands. if someone offered me a dying puppy for my snake, i would take it... and kill it with my bare hands. i don't think i'd be able to off a healthy, happy puppy.
posted by xmattxfx at 8:07 AM on February 4, 2003


xmatt, that's possibly the strangest pet-related thing I have ever heard. How exactly is the little rabbit going to "harm" your burmese python?

do you think that somehow your killing machine you keep as decoration is incapable of fending for itself?

why keep a python for a pet in the first place? I'm not criticizing, just curious. Reptilian consciousness does not have a place for even RECOGNITION of you. Do you have any emotional attachment to the snake at all? Would you kill it with your bare hands?
posted by Ynoxas at 8:59 AM on February 4, 2003


as strange as it may sound, it is very possible for a rabbit to harm your snake. most snake owners are aware of this. when attacked, a living rabbit will try to kick and bite it's attacker. bunnies have long nails on their feet... these can easily scratch the snake. their teeth are also pretty darn sharp... also able to penetrate the snake's skin. these scratchs and bites could then become infected. when i used to feed him live rats, i watched as my snake coiled around one. the rat managed to sink his teeth into my snake. i wasn't pleased.

second, when i kill a rabbit, i do it quickly. if i were to leave it to my snake to kill, it would take some time. burmese pythons are constrictors and thus kill by constricting and sufficating their victim. the victim could die in less than a minute if properly coiled, otherwise it would take longer.

my decorative killing machine is a pet like any other non-mammalian pet. it looks nice and to me represents a truly great specimen of nature.
posted by xmattxfx at 1:22 PM on February 4, 2003


« Older Tour Egypt from the comfort of your home or office   |   Voices From the Trading Post Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post