Japanese Bug Fights

January 5, 2008 9:19 PM

Rule No. 1: Two bugs to a fight. Rule No. 2: Bug fights go on as long as they have to. Rule No. 3: No outside weapons in bug fights.
posted by Cool Papa Bell (185 comments total)

i thought rule #1 was, you don't talk about bug fights.
posted by bruce at 9:25 PM on January 5 [2 favorites]

That really wasn't a very fair fight. It's hard to see just what a scorpion could do to a big beetle like that. Its claws are useless and its stinger is no better.

It's obvious that the two of them saw it that way, because the beetle was hunting the scorpion and the scorpion was trying to get away.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:25 PM on January 5

Stupid as it can be
posted by zouhair at 9:29 PM on January 5

Rule number three: As long as we aren't the ones who die, it's entertainment.

Hey, why don't we link to some crush videos as well. If animals are going to be in pain, I might as well masturbate to it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:33 PM on January 5 [4 favorites]

Now I know what to answer when someone asks me, "What is the opposite of cuteoverload?"
posted by drdanger at 9:36 PM on January 5 [3 favorites]

jesus. the praying mantis vs. the wasp was especially intense.

i liked the tarantula vs. big stick insect thing. the tarantula just sat on the other guy.


i don't know about the ethics of this, but i find this entertaining.
posted by Muffpub at 9:39 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]

One day I will wake up, and where I will be will be somewhere where cruelty is understood to include creatures that are other than human.
posted by humannaire at 9:43 PM on January 5 [10 favorites]

WTF??? I think its retarded!
posted by petersn1 at 9:44 PM on January 5

To add to the shocking barbarity of "underground" insect fighting, the vanquished combatants are summarily dispatched, with methods that include incineration with burning WD-40 spray, firecrackers, magnifying glasses, or molten polyethylene from burning Hot Wheels track.
posted by Tube at 10:00 PM on January 5 [2 favorites]

These are pretty gross and I don't find it entertaining in the slightest. If these fights were captured out in the wild and not forced, then I would be able to watch them without apprehension. I don't think forcing death upon living creatures as "entertaining." Now, if we replace the bugs with retarded children with sharp objects, now THAT'S entertainment!
posted by MaryDellamorte at 10:02 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]

It's like a Japanese monster movie, but with real monsters. They should get some little cars and houses and set them up around the fighting bugs. Maybe throw in some spooky 60s music too.
posted by Skygazer at 10:04 PM on January 5

Must..... resist.... urge..... no.... need..... for.... MetaTalk Callout.

AstroZombie, I could have lived a complete and satisfied life without learning that such a genre existed....
still a big fan though
posted by crazyray at 10:05 PM on January 5

...of AstroZombie's that is, not of the genre or this FPP!
posted by crazyray at 10:07 PM on January 5

Toy soldiers would look awesome. Maybe set them on fire. (The toy solders, not the bugs).
posted by Skygazer at 10:07 PM on January 5

And some cheap special effects, too. It'd be awesome.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:10 PM on January 5

I would support this if the owners of the losers and anyone betting against the winners were subsequently ground up and fed to the winners.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:11 PM on January 5 [3 favorites]

Nasty. This is no different from cock fighting, dog fighting or any other forced blood sport.

Certainly not entertainment. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the people running that site are primitive wankers and belong in a bygone age.
posted by Brockles at 10:17 PM on January 5 [3 favorites]

Didn't the author of this site post to AskMe a few days ago, asking how to improve his site in order to drive more traffic to it? I'd dig up the question if there was an easy way of finding it... the question certainly didn't last long.
posted by xil at 10:18 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]

You know, I'm really glad that I can come here and see other posters comment to the effect that this is cruel even if it's "just bugs." I likes me some bugs. Sometimes, in the wild, bugs have to fight. Watching that can be incredible. But watching two captive creatures being forced to fight in some shoddy plastic pen, that's just pathetic.
posted by lekvar at 10:20 PM on January 5 [5 favorites]

I'd just like to clarify that I appreciate the link, CPB. I just can't appreciate the content.
posted by lekvar at 10:27 PM on January 5

jesus. the praying mantis vs. the wasp was especially intense.

I am going to have seriously whack dreams. That wasp is evil. They should've given the praying mantis a switchblade or somethin...
posted by Skygazer at 10:27 PM on January 5

Yeah, Astro Zombie, I really didn't need to know that some people get off on watching someone step on rats.
posted by papakwanz at 10:29 PM on January 5

Didn't the author of this site post to AskMe a few days ago, asking how to improve his site in order to drive more traffic to it?

Yep: "Seriously, what is it about my new site JapaneseBugFights.com that people (reddit.com, digg.com) don't like? Any webpage critics out there wanna help?"
posted by smackfu at 10:31 PM on January 5

I am no lover of bugs, but this is somewhat unsettling to watch, and I say that as a big fan of boxing and UFC (does that make me a hypocrite? I have no idea). I will say that if you can put aside your displeasure at seeing animals forced to kill each other for human pleasure, it is interesting to watch how the animals use their bodies in their fights & how their anatomies seem to predispose them to certain "styles" of combat. I guess I can see a little bit better now how the various animal style schools of kung fu came about.
posted by papakwanz at 10:40 PM on January 5

Cool Papa Bell, this is cooler than fuck.

This is cooler than ice cream, dry socks, and free porn combined.

You can even see the camera flashes from the people shooting stills in the background, just like those other little Internet movies.

This is clearly sidebar material, right up there with the ALL TIME GREATS like Brian Peppers, the Nutty Buddy, "Will it Blend", the Cadbury gorilla, and TruckNuts.

In the future, I'm hoping to see microscopic battles, perhaps pitting Paramecium vs. E-coli.

Well done, sir, well done.
posted by Tube at 10:42 PM on January 5 [4 favorites]

smackfu: Interesting, I saw this on on del.icio.us popular 2 days ago and only shared it w/ my WoW guild. It belongs there more than here.
posted by mnology at 10:45 PM on January 5 [2 favorites]

"If we do not fight, they will kill us both."
posted by Demogorgon at 10:47 PM on January 5

We have to fight them over there so they don't bring that shit over here.
posted by nola at 11:07 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]

Frankly, I'd enjoy seeing the promoters tied up and put in a glass enclosure with a lot of these little critters. Payback. These people are just stupid.
posted by MetaMan at 11:23 PM on January 5

sorry, it's just bugs. Can't get all that worked up about it.

I thought it was cool.
posted by empath at 11:29 PM on January 5

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BUGS?
Unclench, people.

It wasn't that good. It wasn't that bad. Personally I'd have preferred it if they had left the bugs alone and let them live. But hey, in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather they use bugs than birds or mammals or fish or any other kingdom.

Vegetables are ok too.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:38 PM on January 5

That's disgusting.

I thought we'd come so much farther.
posted by Jenafeef at 11:42 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]

Unclench, people.

Oh, I'm not clenched. I just stopped burning ants with a magnifying glass when I was 5. My bad. I didn't realize that it never ceases being cool.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:48 PM on January 5 [5 favorites]

Cool man! I can't wait for the posts showing the "fun" of cock-fighting, dog-fighting, and bum-fights. Hey, could we see two starving Third-world children fighting over a crust of bread too?

Using up other creatures' lives for your amusement (no matter how "lowly" you think those creatures are) is simply barbaric.

It's one thing if those creatures naturally and without human intervention attack one another, or if there's some scientific knowledge to be gained. (I'm all for pithing frogs in science class. I'm not at all for pithing frogs to get your jollies.)

But engineering the fights just for amusement is disgusting and wasteful and offensive. Even if they aren't cuddly mammals.

This post shouldn't be here.
posted by orthogonality at 12:09 AM on January 6 [3 favorites]

Bug fights are worse than Hitler.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 12:33 AM on January 6

In the future, I'm hoping to see microscopic battles, perhaps pitting Paramecium vs. E-coli.

I think that would actually be very cool to watch. You could also sell the exact same footage as microscopic bestiality porn, and no one would be able to call you on it.

Then again, I could watch a dinoflagellate spin in a circle for half an hour and be utterly absorbed. It's just a good thing my basic cable service doesn't carry The Pondwater Channel.
posted by phooky at 12:37 AM on January 6 [2 favorites]

People who dismiss this and say "well at least it wasn't cuddly animals" or "it's only bugs" are missing the point. I think orthogonality summed it up pretty well. I like how people try to negate things by saying "well at least it's not [random extreme thing]." You can't devalue something just because it may be on the "lower" end on the spectrum of offensiveness and brutality.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 12:43 AM on January 6

This is pretty fucking disgusting.

I think there's only one solution for working this shit out of the human spirit - we are going to have to create a robomech arena.
posted by Ryvar at 12:58 AM on January 6

Now, if we replace the bugs with retarded children with sharp objects, now THAT'S entertainment!

Oooh! Oooh! Can we? Please?!!? TAARD STREEENGTH!
posted by sourwookie at 1:32 AM on January 6

Bug fights are worse than Hitler.

Really? As someone who has used plenty of pesticides and lost ancestors to The Holocaust I'd love to hear why.
posted by sourwookie at 1:34 AM on January 6

Well, aren't we all riled up today! Honestly, if people are going to watch animals fight, I would rather they pit bugs against one another than any other species. Bug fights do not seem all that barbaric; I mean, dogs at least have sad eyes and feelings and make pathetic whimpers when hurt. This is far from my favorite FPP, but I am even farther from up in arms over it.
posted by KingoftheWhales at 1:56 AM on January 6

sorry, it's just bugs. Can't get all that worked up about it.

posted by empath

Eponysterical.
posted by bakerybob at 2:10 AM on January 6 [7 favorites]

I mean, it's only waterboarding, it's not like it's the rack or the iron maiden!
posted by MaryDellamorte at 2:27 AM on January 6 [4 favorites]

The site user's account has been suspended.
posted by DenOfSizer at 4:44 AM on January 6

God help me for asking this, because somebody will think I'm just snarking or something, but I swear I am 100% sincerely curious about this: for those who find this barbaric (orthogonality, MaryDellamorte, anyone else), what are your personal criteria for choosing what kinds of living things are okay to "use", and for what purposes? Using bugs for entertainment = bad, clearly, but what about using bugs to feed a pet? Using bacteria to make cheese? Using bacteria for entertainment (if such a thing is possible)? Where do you personally feel that the lines should be drawn?

(Again, I'm not snarking, or trying to defend the bug-fighting or anything. I'm really genuinely curious--your position is different from mine and I would like to understand it.)
posted by equalpants at 4:47 AM on January 6

Equalpants, I don't think it's a matter of "using bugs for entertainment" that's upsetting people; it's "ending life for entertainment."
posted by kimota at 5:03 AM on January 6

WTF??? I think its retarded!

Your sensitivity is dually noted.
posted by hal9k at 5:05 AM on January 6

Equalpants, I don't think it's a matter of "using bugs for entertainment" that's upsetting people; it's "ending life for entertainment."

Yes, I understand that. My question is where the lines are drawn. Ending bugs' lives for entertainment = bad. Ending bugs' lives for food = okay or bad? Ending bacteria lives for entertainment = okay or bad? I am curious about what criteria other people are using to judge these situations.
posted by equalpants at 5:14 AM on January 6

Michael Vick: The Exoskeletal Years
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:42 AM on January 6 [1 favorite]

Equalpants, killing bugs for food is not taking delight in their pain and death the way this is. Is there a substantial moral difference between the two? I don't know, but it certainly feels like there is.
posted by rottytooth at 6:11 AM on January 6

1. This is the most beanerific thread I have ever read in many many many years of reading MeFi.

2. Too bad the link is dead.

3. But seriously, this is well nigh the funniest thread I've ever read. So thanks for the yuks.
posted by From Bklyn at 6:30 AM on January 6

Equalpants, my take on it is do your best not to be an asshole.

All of us live in a society where we kill bugs all day long. Just driving from one place to another kills bugs. Lots. Most people eat meat. Even vegans eat food which, during its production and harvest, caused the death of some animals.

The best example I can think of at the moment is the boss who is forced to lay five people off and is sorry about it vs the boss who is forced to lay five people off and calls each one in to his office and takes glee from the humiliation of each person. It's the same thing in each case: five people lose their jobs. But I don't really want to know that second guy and I think the world would be better off without him.

So is killing a dozen bugs by driving to the supermarket any better than videotaping yourself killing a dozen bugs with a magnifying glass and getting off on it? Not in the grand scheme of things. But in my book the second guy is an asshole and I'll keep my fingers crossed for a comical, humiliating, and untimely death for him.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 6:44 AM on January 6 [2 favorites]

This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the support department as soon as possible, and please have your site name ready.
posted by The Deej at 7:24 AM on January 6

Here's a piece from a recent Granta about Chinese cricket fighting. I read it recently without any sense that such an activity might be objectionable. I think some bug blood sports probably are acceptable given appropriate cultural context. (Disclaimer: FPPed site is borked, and I haven't seen how awful it is)
posted by roofus at 7:41 AM on January 6

Small, crunchy, gooey creatures have always been a love of mine, but I'm aware that there is necessary or forgivable killing of said creatures -- in the name of science, for food/in the food-making process, when they're an invasive species, when they're pestilent, when someone has an all-consuming true phobia (because I don't have any respect for fear stemming from ignorance), etc. However, tormenting or killing them for fun has always been beyond my understanding.

Insects and etc. don't have the capacity for suffering that more complex animals do. But it's not really about how much suffering such animals are capable of -- it's that some people are willing to subject these creatures to the highest levels of torment they can experience, for said people's own passing amusement. So, for me, it's more about the mindset of the people involved, than whether the suffering of common arthropods "counts" in any sense. The act of carelessly fucking with a basically helpless living thing (that had not, and probably wouldn't have ever caused harm to the tormenter) bothers me its needless destructiveness, thoughtlessness, and cruelty.
posted by Coatlicue at 8:00 AM on January 6 [2 favorites]

i think some bug blood sports probably are acceptable given appropriate cultural context. in other words, it's ok for them but not for us. do you apply this ethic to female genital mutilation?

also, if a pest control worker really enjoys his job, does that make him a genoinsecticidal sadist? what if he takes bugs home from his job that were doomed to die anyway and pits them against each other in aquarium fights? is it worse if there is wagering on these fights? is it any better if he donates the house vigorish from the wagering to peta?
posted by bruce at 8:03 AM on January 6

Bug fights are a gateway to crueler sports. I'm sure it all leads to torturing social outcasts in the desert.
posted by RussHy at 8:08 AM on January 6

we are going to have to create a robomech arena.
posted by Ryvar


Yes. Yes. Do it. Yes.
posted by papakwanz at 8:35 AM on January 6

Hermit Crab Races
One hermit crab per participant. A plastic beach table, without the umbrella in the middle, such that there is a little hole in the centre. Select crabs whose shells are not wider than the diameter of the central hole.
The crabs start near the outer edge. Hands are used to block the crabs from leaving the playing field via the outer edge. The winner is the player whose crab escapes to freedom via the central hole first.
Wagering is optional. Cheering on your crab with shouts of "Come on you little bugger! Go! Go!" is encouraged. Naming your crab, and heavy drinking, is mandatory. Please put your crabs back on the beach when you are done.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:48 AM on January 6

Bug fights are worse than Hitler.

Wow. It's like Godwin week here on the Mefi.
posted by humannaire at 8:51 AM on January 6

Argh, I'm with equalpants on this one. I concede the logic behind the argument that it's cruel as being valid due to its parallel in conventional cruelty to animals. But the thing that makes it a precarious moral position to take is that we're willing to kill bugs to fulfill almost any conceivable human purpose unless we're top-notch Buddhist monks. If you and a bunch of friends go see a movie, taking your car and splatting a bunch of bugs on the windshield in the course, does that constitute killing bugs for entertainment?

If you argue that it's not the same thing because the bugfights are the purpose of the entertainment whereas the windshield fodder is accidental even though it's intentional, you're actually re-enacting the reasoning that is used to justify killing other humans in self-defense and I don't think people are actually taking it that seriously.

It seems important due to the recent Karnovsky Affair and the charges leveled (by the people on the external sites) that MeFi is the Land of the Hypocritically Righteous.
posted by XMLicious at 9:08 AM on January 6

Look, any way you look at it, it's animal cruelty. The question is, do you think that cruelty is okay because we treat bugs as insignificant elsewhere?

We eat fish, but I don't pull goldfish out of the tank and fling them to the ground to enjoy their pained flopping. I would say where there is opportunity to be humane, there is cause to be humane; after all, its one of the few things that makes us better than beasts.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:41 AM on January 6 [2 favorites]

Well, at least the bug fights aren't in Texas.

I'm sad the video is down; I would have liked to have seen this, especially if someone could have edited in a mini-Tokyo in the background so it's like the latest Godzilla flick.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 9:48 AM on January 6

I've got to say I can't muster up much sympathy for species that devour their own young, or in the case of the mantises, their mates.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:50 AM on January 6

I'm a hypocrite, for sure. And Bruce has a really good point with his remark about the pest control guy. By the reasoning I offered, we would demand that pest control guys all be miserable people who wrestle with their conscience every day. Which is stupid.

All I can say is that I think everyone just has to do his best to get by without being a jerk. I don't think these guys are doing that.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 9:52 AM on January 6 [1 favorite]

Hmm. A long time dream of mine has been to get different animals from different parts of the world and fight them to the death. And I'm not talking lions vs. bears. I mean: 50 penguins vs. a crocodile.
posted by iamck at 10:08 AM on January 6

I think some bug blood sports probably are acceptable given appropriate cultural context.

If that cultural context is primitive barbarism, then you are quite correct. It would be appropriate to them, but only them.

Killing anything (animals and humans) for sport is wrong. Killing something in the pursuit of something else (ie your daily lives or for food) is different. It is the killing purely for the sport of watching them die that makes this indefensible. It serves no purpose other than to get your jollies. Killing for food perpetuates life - it is a natural process.

Driving to the cinema is not at all comparable to televised bug fights. Just as much as an elephant stepping on an ant while having sex is not killing it in the pursuit of enjoyment of the killing of the animal. It's just collateral damage of one being living its life.
posted by Brockles at 10:47 AM on January 6

The videos definitely satisified a "which will win" adolescent curiousity, but i was surprised at the slight queasy discomfort, especially at the end of Battle #30, when the scorpion underwent his/her death throes in the jaws of whatever that beetle was. And yet I watched on in fascination, just like watching a video from Iraq on youtube.
posted by ba3r at 11:13 AM on January 6

The site user's account has been suspended.

*Alas*

Like legal LSD, it was simply too cool to last...
posted by Tube at 11:23 AM on January 6

Bob: ... an elephant stepping on an ant while having sex is not killing it in the pursuit of enjoyment of the killing of the animal. It's just collateral damage of one being living its life.

Charlotte: ...okay
posted by From Bklyn at 11:30 AM on January 6

Astro Zombie: Oh, I'm not clenched. I just stopped burning ants with a magnifying glass when I was 5. My bad. I didn't realize that it never ceases being cool.

Heh, because that's exactly what I said.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:35 AM on January 6

I've got to say I can't muster up much sympathy for species that devour their own young, or in the case of the mantises, their mates.
posted by bashos_frog

Or in the case of humans, the working classes.
posted by papakwanz at 11:39 AM on January 6 [1 favorite]

equalpants writes "but what about using bugs to feed a pet? Using bacteria to make cheese? Using bacteria for entertainment"

Me personally? It's an issue of wastefulnesss and lack of appreciation. A "lowly" bug is a complex piece of machinery, "designed" by evolution for a purpose. When people fail to appreciate that, and waste it in stupidity, I'm disappointed and annoyed. If, on the other hand, that perfection is destroyed to make food, I'm OK with that, because the whole carnivorous system is based on that. One engine of perfection is being dismantled so another can continue.

Bacteria for entertainment? Yeah, like phooky, I'd watch the Pondwater Channel. Killing bacteria to demonstrate the evolution of bacterial resistance? Sure. To make art or food? Yeah, OK. Just to be an ass? Not so much.
posted by orthogonality at 12:33 PM on January 6

Cheese: Engines of perfection.

(But seriously, you make a great point.)
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:54 PM on January 6

Cheeses love you, CF12.

Killing anything (animals and humans) for sport is wrong.

So the years when Edmonton was literally covered in caterpillars, it was wrong of me to walk down the sidewalk stepping on them? I mean, sure, it was literally impossible to avoid stepping on a lot of caterpillars, but I did also sometimes make an effort to stretch or shorten my step so that I'd get more than I would with a normal stride.

What about the bug-zapper? Was it wrong to leave it on even when we weren't on the back patio knocking back a brewski?
posted by five fresh fish at 1:28 PM on January 6

Killing anything (animals and humans) for sport is wrong.

So the years when Edmonton was literally covered in caterpillars, it was wrong of me to walk down the sidewalk stepping on them? I mean, sure, it was literally impossible to avoid stepping on a lot of caterpillars, but I did also sometimes make an effort to stretch or shorten my step so that I'd get more than I would with a normal stride.

I fail to see any link between that sentence and your example. At all.

Did you step on the caterpillars for sport? You said you couldn't avoid stepping in them, not that you deliberately went out and ran up and down videoing it and laughing. The basic concept that you couldn't avoid it kind of erases the larger issue. If you started to enjoy modifying your stride and killing more and found it funny, then yes, you had started to blur the line.

But I suspect you already knew that.
posted by Brockles at 1:34 PM on January 6

Killing anything (animals and humans) for sport is wrong.

So the years when Edmonton was literally covered in caterpillars, it was wrong of me to walk down the sidewalk stepping on them? I mean, sure, it was literally impossible to avoid stepping on a lot of caterpillars, but I did also sometimes make an effort to stretch or shorten my step so that I'd get more than I would with a normal stride.

I fail to see any link between that sentence and your example. At all.

Did you step on the caterpillars for sport? You said you couldn't avoid stepping in them, not that you deliberately went out and ran up and down videoing it and laughing. The basic concept that you couldn't avoid it kind of erases the larger issue. If you started to enjoy modifying your stride and killing more and found it funny, then yes, you had started to blur the line.

But I suspect you already knew that.
posted by Brockles at 1:34 PM on January 6

Ooops. Not sure where the double came from. It signifies no attempt at increases emphasis...
posted by Brockles at 1:34 PM on January 6

Did you step on the caterpillars for sport?

I quote myself:

I did also sometimes make an effort to stretch or shorten my step so that I'd get more than I would with a normal stride.

Yes. I would sometimes stomp on the little buggers maliciously and with deliberate intent of killing more and more of them. If one's going to have one caterpillar pop under one's foot, it might as well be a dozen.

I'm gonna go to hell and have people wish I were dead, because I took a little perverse joy in mass-stomping during a caterpillar blight. Damn.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:14 PM on January 6

i think i used up all my favorites for the day favoriting everything Astro Zombie posted.

thanks, zombie.

thombie.
posted by jtron at 2:51 PM on January 6

Also, now I need to google "Edmonton caterpillar" to see if there's any pictures around of streets covered in writhing multileggedness, possibly with a fishy leaper bounding around Mario-style.
posted by jtron at 2:53 PM on January 6

Thank you, jtron. I have now achieved my goal of having more favorites than posts and comments, and can unburden myself of my carefully constructed, favorite-seeking persona and reveal the true Astro Zombie hidden beneath.

VOTE RON PAUL!
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:06 PM on January 6

Ron Paul vs. Lyndon LaRouche in a Japanese Insect Cage Match: Who would win?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:09 PM on January 6

I have now achieved my goal of having more favorites than posts and comments

Pfft. Amateur. I've had that most of the time I've been here. And I'm an arsehole. See what you've done to yourself?

Won't you think of the children!
posted by Brockles at 3:14 PM on January 6

You're going to compare your measly three hundred favorites to my nearly four thousand?

I applaud your spunk. But you are a eyelash mite who has chosen to battle a giant desert hairy scorpion. The battle will be swift and humiliating.

Gosh, I wish there was some way we could actually see what such a fight might look like.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:24 PM on January 6

Oh my God, it's not even three hundred! It's half of that!

Did you ever hear the story of the guy who bet Milton Berle that he had a larger penis than the comedian? Well, the guy opens his pants and produces this monstrous schlong. Berle looks at it, unimpressed, and begins to open his fly.

At that moment, one of his friends cries out "Just show him enough to win!"
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:26 PM on January 6

Heh.

I thought the comment related to purely ratio? Well, shucks, for my relatively short time here, I thought I held my end up well by comparison (so to speak. Particularly after your example). Looks like I'll have to cancel my social life for the next two years so I can catch up on the many lonely hours you must have spent racking up such a huge quantity of posts.

Now, where did I put Hef's number? He was looking forward to seeing me tonight, too, I heard.
posted by Brockles at 3:48 PM on January 6

Tell him to give Bubbles my love. He'll know what I mean.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:58 PM on January 6

Wait. Isn't that Michael? I've not been near his house since that odd 'incident' and the time that Uri stopped taking my calls.

That'll teach him to keep his hands to himself.
posted by Brockles at 4:02 PM on January 6

I really don't see why everybody here is in full animal cruelty mode. Cockfighting and dogfighting involves taking animals that would not naturally tear each other to pieces and evoking them to do so by means of starvation and other such torturous tactics. This is just bugs fighting. Bugs fight other bugs. It happens millions of times a day. Dogs are not regularly butchering each other in the streets. The bugs are simply placed in the vicinity of one another and they fight. Compare this to the prison system; certainly if you do the same thing to humans it is far less humane?
posted by tehloki at 4:45 PM on January 6

The difference is that I would pay to see vicious criminals bet each other up. In fact, I do, as I am a patron of boxing.

I kid! I love the sweet science!
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:02 PM on January 6

tehloki: Er. What planet do you come from where dog's don't naturally fight? I can cite, as examples, some pretty damn hefty vet bills from my girlfriend recently that directly refute that from patching up just such an incident. And that was from two dogs living in the same house...

Dog's naturally fight each other. Always have and always will. Not to the death, usually, but that is because either we drag them off, or they get to the point when they'd rather run away than continuing to fight.

Cockerels naturally fight each other. It's part of their process of ensuring that they mate. It's generally only to the death (like the dogs) when the one that works out it's losing can't run away (what with all the men with money in their hands blocking the way). The extremes of the fight (only one survives) is the aspect that is man made (although not always - some natural mating ritual fights are to the death).

The bugs in this instance were in a 12" square perspex cage. They were pushed into an unnatural situation - an extreme proximity to other, aggressive, species. They had no choice but to fight. When, in any natural situation, one would have run away at the first sign of aggression, the unnatural situation (created by the people involved for the sport of watching them fight) prevented this more natural resolution. The only alternative to dying was to fight. In one particular example, the Scorpion was constantly trying to climb up the side of the cage away from the spider. Only the slipperiness of the surface prevented it from running away. It only fought as it had no choice.

All the situations are exaggerated examples of nature - from selective breeding of dogs and cockerels, to selection of aggressive insect species that wouldn't necessarily meet - and the placing of them in an artificial environment where they had no alternative but to fight to ensure their own survival. Purely for the entertainment of those watching.

Like some people have said - it would be interesting to see which species is tougher, if they had met naturally, but they didn't. This was blood sports. Pure and simple. Forcing an animal (no matter how small, or down the cognitive thought scale) to fight and die for entertainment is wrong. Just as wrong as if they were human. I'm shocked that you can't instantly see that.
posted by Brockles at 5:39 PM on January 6

I applaud your spunk.

Y'know, that always brings nasty mental imagery to my mind. Some sort of cross between bukkake and formal evening dress, as if one were at the opera. (And what an opera that would be. I think I'll give it a pass; anyone want my ticket?)
posted by five fresh fish at 6:06 PM on January 6

Some sort of cross between bukkake and formal evening dress

Well, this was fun. My, look at the time.
posted by odinsdream at 7:25 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

Bugkake, maybe? Speaking of beetle juice...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:58 PM on January 6

wow. that was fascinating and terribly hard to watch. i gots the jibblies.

i like that they advertise for bedbug-safe encasements. genius marketing, that is.
posted by es_de_bah at 8:31 PM on January 6

I found the whole concept of bug-fighting distasteful, but what really made me quit watching was the incredible squick factor. That damn millipede is almost as bad a a spider. Freakin' legs hard-scrabbling pointy ickyick.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:35 PM on January 6

One day I will wake up, and where I will be will be somewhere where cruelty is understood to include creatures that are other than human.

You need to look no further than Hollywood. You know the "No animals were harmed..." statement you see in the end credits of films? That's issued by the American Humane Association's Film and Television Unit. From a New Yorker article [reg req.] about the organization:

...Only cats that like dogs should be cast in cat-and-dog movies. No individual fish can do more than three takes in a day. Also, under no circumstances can a nonhuman cast member be squished. This rule applies to all nonhuman things, including cockroaches. Karen Rosa, the director of American Humane's Film and Television Unit, was discussing this particular guideline one day last summer. "If you show up on set with twenty-five thousand cockroaches, you better leave with twenty-five thousand cockroaches," she said. I wondered if she extended the same welcome to cockroaches at home. "A cockroach in my kitchen is one thing," Rosa said. "A cockroach in a movie is an actor. Like any other actor, it deserves to go home at the end of the day."

If only these creepy-crawlies had gotten their SAG cards.
posted by horsewithnoname at 10:20 PM on January 6

Hi there. I honestly didn't expect hue and cry over cruelty. Mea culpa for the offended.

However, just this evening, I caught the latest episode of Iron Chef America, featuring two widely respected chefs, Jamie Oliver and Mario Batali. This was "Battle Cobia," where this particular fish was the secret ingredient.

The fish were live when they were unveiled as the theme for the competition. The two chefs scooped them out of their tank and promptly filleted them for the cameras and the judges.

Now, you can obviously make a contrast here -- the fish weren't goaded into fighting each other, and at least a few lucky people got an honest meal out of the process. But it's hard to say that animals slaughtered for this cooking show, or any cooking show for that matter, aren't being killed for entertainment purposes. And is gourmet cooking itself not artistry and entertainment, on some level?

So, be offended and call me a dick for making the post. It's a free country and you paid your five bucks. But if you fail to recognize that there are multiple fine lines at work here ... well, I can't help you.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:49 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

Using the presence of other, notable fine lines (including the preparation of food) to step firmly, and with both feet well over the line and try and compare that to forcing two animals to fight is tenuous justification at best. The fact that the fish was alive and was killed for food on tv was coincidental to the entertainment. It was not the sole purpose of the entertainment. Killing and eating food is a fact of life.

So, yes. You're a dick. Even more so for using that example to attempt to justify it.
posted by Brockles at 4:51 AM on January 7

So, be offended and call me a dick for making the post. It's a free country and you paid your five bucks. But if you fail to recognize that there are multiple fine lines at work here ... well, I can't help you.

Wow. Dick, indeed!
posted by humannaire at 6:05 AM on January 7

It'll be interesting to see how this argument changes when we get the first robots that are complex and functionally similar to an insect.

And then to see how it changes again when we get the first cuddly, furry robots.
posted by BaxterG4 at 8:32 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

BaxterG4, we may already be there. There have been reports of bomb squads in Iraq becoming attached to their bomb-disposal robots and becoming agitated when they (the robots) got damaged. Once you name a thing you imbue it with a part of yourself.
posted by lekvar at 11:49 AM on January 7

Do bugs feel pain? I don't know. My knowledge of bug anatomy is limited to bees, who have some similar systems to ours, e.g. a digestive tract, but what's there is so rudimentary that you can't draw parallels. It's a difficult argument to claim that what we call the feeling of pain is shared by insects. You're only going to get so far as stimulus response. What's dramatic about these clips is that the insect's response to a stimulus involving danger, e.g. the sight of an approaching insectoid enemy, is identical to our response in the face of a threat--it tries everything it can to get away from it, or it tries to do away with the threat. Fight or flight. For this it doesn't need a sophisticated pain system, or perhaps any at all. And that's something I think we can sympathize with, and I think that's what's sitting under the condemnations of this website voiced upthread.

Now, what is our sympathy for a bug worth? Not much. With that, I'll leave you at the doorstep of double-effect.
posted by Nahum Tate at 1:59 PM on January 7 [2 favorites]

I hope no one was calling you a dick for making the FPP, Cool Papa Bell. If they are, they are in the wrong.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:22 PM on January 7

"It's a free country."
posted by humannaire at 6:00 PM on January 7

First of all, us humans beat the shit out of each other every day, for which we pay huge amounts of money to watch, so it can't be the actaul fighting between two living things that people are upset about. I.E. if the bugs were assured to live, that would be okay? Secondly, nearly every Person can't go a single day without killing an insect of some kind, and few would hesitate to stop a scorpion in one ever crossed their path, most of the time intentialy, so it can't be the actaully killing of the bugs that is the problem. Soooo, what's the problem? I believe it is only that people are not used to seeing these insects from such a close perspective. If we could get close enough to personalize the lives of bacteria, I assume there would soon follow an out cry against antibiotics??
posted by Benzle at 6:45 PM on January 7

Soooo, what's the problem?

Geez. Is it really that hard to understand how forcing two animals into a situation where they have no choice but to fight for the death in unnatural circumstances purely for personal entertainment is wrong?

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Not agreeing is one thing (but obviously wrong), but not getting it?
posted by Brockles at 6:56 PM on January 7

IMHO, the fact that bugs were killed is not the issue. There's nothing wrong with smacking mosquitoes.

Taking pleasure in the deaths of bugs is not the issue. Lots of us here regularly arrange for animals to be killed, often under inhumane conditions, so that we can enjoy the sweet taste of their innards. Hunting for food and pleasure seems rather more moral than getting factory farmed meat from the supermarket.

The problem with watching bug fights is the creeping fear that your enjoyment comes from sadism. I don't think I'd want to spend time around someone who watched a lot of this sort of thing.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:53 PM on January 7

Honestly, I would prefer that the bugs would not be allowed to kill each other. Watching them fight evokes no "sadist" pleasure in me, as I am of the opinion that insects have a negligible capacity to feel or understand pain. I just enjoy watching two organisms which have adapted to distinctly different forms of combat have a contest of skills. It is no better or worse than watching boxing, except for the fact that the intelligences involved are so small that the fight cannot help being fatal. I am just not grasping this sudden massive surge of sympathy for insects. Surely if you think this is inhumane, you would think an insect's life to be valuable enough to fail to squash that mosquito, to fail to leave out a bug zapper, a roach motel?
posted by tehloki at 10:04 PM on January 7

It is no better or worse than watching boxing, except for the fact that the intelligences involved are so small that the fight cannot help being fatal.

Last time I checked, boxers chose to be in the fight. No one forced them into a plexi glass container and made them fight.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 10:08 PM on January 7

I wouldn't want to try to force a boxer into a Plexiglas container.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:42 PM on January 7

I would argue that the boxer's situation is more depraved; they are causing harm to each other knowingly and almost solely for the sake of the entertainment of others. The insects are simply fighting each other out of instinct.
posted by tehloki at 6:34 AM on January 8

But still not by choice, and still having to against their natural instincts - which is to run away as was patently obvious in some of the videos.

Insects may fight naturally, but I'd wager that very, very few of those examples would have resulted in the death in the natural world. Just in one of them making for the hills pretty damned sharpish.

The boxers situation isn't depraved - it's a choice you don't agree with. These insects had no choice, or alternative. It was kill or be killed, and they wouldn't have been in this situation (for the most part) naturally. A lot of the animals don't even naturally occur in the same parts of the world.
posted by Brockles at 6:42 AM on January 8

Besides, don't compare it to boxing as it's not at all comparable. Compare it to (a harsher and more realistic version of) the film Gladiator. Or are you going to tell me that there is nothing wrong with enslaving humans to fight to the death for your personal amusement?
posted by Brockles at 6:44 AM on January 8

The thing is, this situation isn't equivalent to Gladiator alone, it's equivalent to saying "gladiatorial combat is so much worse than all of the other ways that Romans exploited and killed slaves, which were less depraved and more humane."
posted by XMLicious at 2:35 PM on January 8

Guff.

Both are forced combat to the death for personal amusement with no chance of escape or avoidance. The disapproval is aimed solely and squarely at the site and its premise, not judging insects or their other interactions as a whole. Killing animals for pleasure (however it is done) is wrong.

Extrapolating the rest of the treatment of insects in the world as a means of justifying this is rubbish. None of the rest of the aspects of insect life or treatment is relevant. Next thing you'll be saying that the Scorpion was a bit ugly and so deserved to die more than the slightly prettier stag beetle.
posted by Brockles at 4:22 PM on January 8

Extrapolating the rest of the treatment of insects in the world as a means of justifying this is rubbish.

I don't think you understand the argument that I'm making. I'm not trying to justify this. I'm saying that to vehemently condemn this while condoning by silence the other treatment of insects is so ridiculously hypocritical as to make the initial objection to bugfights cavilous.

Condemning bugfights doesn't cost you anything. But it's quite likely that you're participating in immoral treatment of insects in numerous ways every day. If you want to convince people that you really care about and take seriously the humane treatment of insects and you're not simply climbing up to the moral high ground to wave your arms and shout down at the rest of us for the sake of self-embiggenment you ought to also take a position on this issue that involves some kind of sacrifice on your part. Declare that you'll only eat organic food that doesn't use pesticides, not even organic pesticides, for example.
posted by XMLicious at 9:25 PM on January 8

Honestly I just don't think I can continue this discussion, as insect life just seems to be below my intrinsic mental threshhold for empathy. I could as easily argue for the sanctity of a bacterium, plankton, or skin cell.
posted by tehloki at 4:30 AM on January 9

I'm saying that to vehemently condemn this while condoning by silence the other treatment of insects is so ridiculously hypocritical as to make the initial objection to bugfights cavilous.

I disagree. I am objecting to this because forced combat of an animal for entertainment is wrong. Your point that 'well you do other bad things' is no more relevant to my argument than tehloki's 'I just don't care about bugs' version. Unless I kill for sport myself, then your position of my being hypocritical is ridiculous. You could argue that anyone who objects to this, yet hunts for foxes (say) would fall into that trap. But not someone with a clear and unambiguous point as mine. Perhaps you simply don't understand what I'm saying (see last paragraph).

The bugs themselves are largely irrelevant (or don't add/remove additional weight to the viewpoint), to the declaration that the site is inappropriate as the concept itself is sufficiently wrong (killing for entertainment) in its own right. It's a black and white example of a morally wrong practice. 'They're only bugs/you kill other bugs' is not relevant.

If you want to convince people that you really care about and take seriously the humane treatment of insects and you're not simply climbing up to the moral high ground to wave your arms and shout down at the rest of us for the sake of self-embiggenment you ought to also take a position on this issue that involves some kind of sacrifice on your part.

a: Bullshit. Seeing something as wrong doesn't mean that you have to analyse every possible connotation or associated action and be pure to the cause 100% to the point when it costs me something. I don't have to account and justify for every action in my life to have a genuine moral standpoint on killing for sport, and the concept of 'only sacrifice shows you mean it' is a primitive viewpoint. The two are not inextricably linked. Your argument makes every single vegetarian (and probably most vegans) hypocritical by the same argument if you expand the consequences fully - what if the truck bringing the vegetables to the store runs over a deer? Or a Rabbit? An animal died bringing the food - by your argument that removes any merit to their argument that eating killing animals to eat is wrong (I'm not vegetarian, for reference). You could even use the same exaggerated extrapolation to suggest that killing vegetables for food is as 'wrong' to them as it is to kill animals.

b: I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks of me about this. I can't stress that point enough. I DO give a fuck that this is really barbaric treatment of animals and the justifications that people are putting forward as to why it isn't range from misguided to pompous to irrelevant. I don't give a flying codpiece if anyone takes ME seriously as long as they don't dismiss the part that is the issue - neither of you (XML/Tehloki any other people tacitly approving of this) have done, really. Although I can see where Tehloki is coming from - some people don't care about Dolphins, some don't care about animals from other continents - his cut off point is lower than theirs, higher than mine. I just don't agree with him where the line needs to be drawn.

To clarify, it is not the treatment of bugs, per se, that I object to. That should be clear from my posts if they are read carefully. Killing for sport is wrong. That is the core of my objection. How about, if you want to disagree with me and call me hypocritical, you actually try and counter the part that I am objecting to?
posted by Brockles at 6:23 AM on January 9

You say "killing for sport is wrong" as if that is a fact.

Pray tell, what makes it a fact?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:01 AM on January 9

No, I'm presenting it as an emphatic opinion, and have opined (also in this thread) that it is only considered acceptable by barbaric cultures.

I have not said it is a fact.
posted by Brockles at 8:18 AM on January 9

I bet St. Augustine sat around having this same earnest conversation, trying to convince his roommates to quit going to the gladiators fight. "Jesus, Gus, give it a rest! They're just slaves, they don't even feel pain like we do!"
posted by RussHy at 11:35 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]

Sorry, Brockles. I was responding specifically to this:

To clarify, it is not the treatment of bugs, per se, that I object to. That should be clear from my posts if they are read carefully. Killing for sport is wrong. That is the core of my objection. How about, if you want to disagree with me and call me hypocritical, you actually try and counter the part that I am objecting to?

I think I can see how I misinterpreted that.

Sport fishing. Catch and release = good. Catch and eat = good. Catch and mount: not good.

Interesting.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:29 PM on January 9

I am objecting to this because forced combat of an animal for entertainment is wrong.

Yeah, but why is it wrong? Is it wrong because the forced combat produces a level of suffering that is inhumane? Because of course that's the difference between this and the forced combat of robots for entertainment, right?

If that's your reasoning then you also have to also be able to deal with the level of suffering that poisoning an insect to death results in. Otherwise your argument has no basis and no one has motivation to take it seriously.
posted by XMLicious at 12:27 AM on January 10

Is it wrong because the forced combat produces a level of suffering that is inhumane?

I think this kind of hits a type of the same kind of thinking that made me have to drop that bloody tiger thread for my own sanity...

I don't feel the need, as it seems an awful lot of people do, to try and consider a situation by mentally transplanting a human into it to judge its severity. Direct analogy is a good starting point, but certainly shouldn't be the sole means by which we judge a situation.

Humane isn't good enough - once a winner was established, slamming a brick on the loser could pass as humane. But trying to consider the situation purely from a human perspective is blinkered, and produces things such as "Well, they don't feel pain like we do, so it's fine". Which is, to my mind, irrelevant. This isn't just about suffering so much - that just makes it worse. It's because (to my mind) if you are going to take a life, then you better have a good reason. Food is a good reason. Being unable to avoid doing so realistically is another (the caterpillar covered pavements/bugs on the windscreen) and it moves to edge cases in that area as to how much reasonable effort should be taken to avoid killing needlessly.

Example: When driving, I'll do everything I can to avoid a rabbit or bird in the road unless it endangers me - in which case bunny gets it
If there is a spider in my house that I don't want there - I'll put it outside. If it's a Black Widow, and I have no means of trapping it safely, I'll probably kill it. But in both examples, only if I have to.

I don't use pesticides, for reference.

So. The taking of a life should require justification. Not in a human sense (it was in my way), but in a 'balance' sense. Killing, as I say, for food is fine. Killing because it makes you laugh/smile/become amused is not.

Because of course that's the difference between this and the forced combat of robots for entertainment, right?

God, no. Not even close. It's because something dies. That's the difference, and I am stunned you can't immediately see that without me ending to point it out any further.
posted by Brockles at 5:21 AM on January 10

It's because something dies. That's the difference, and I am stunned you can't immediately see that without me ending to point it out any further.

Of course I can see it, as I said I follow and concur with the logic by which this can be declared wrong. Remember, I'm not saying it isn't wrong, I'm saying that being particularly offended by this as opposed to other instances of insect death is hypocritical or at least glaringly inconsistent. But if your objection to it is simply that something dies, and doesn't even particularly have to do with unusual suffering incurred through deathmatch combat, that makes it even more puzzling why you find all of the other instances in which insects die needlessly to fulfill human purposes unremarkable or unmoving.

If you're not willing to do something as minimal as eat organic food instead of food produced with pesticides to prevent insects from being poisoned to death, don't you see it's completely hypocritical to call out the bugfight ringmasters for causing the deaths of insects? (Particularly a drastically smaller number of insect deaths than spraying even a single field of crops would cause.)
posted by XMLicious at 6:15 AM on January 10

I'm saying that being particularly offended by this as opposed to other instances of insect death is hypocritical or at least glaringly inconsistent. But if your objection to it is simply that something dies, and doesn't even particularly have to do with unusual suffering incurred through deathmatch combat, that makes it even more puzzling why you find all of the other instances in which insects die needlessly to fulfill human purposes unremarkable or unmoving.

And at what point did any of my views of the treatment of insects ever get discussed? You don't know my feelings on any of the things you have mentioned, as they are not relevant to my opinion that killing for sport is wrong, which is my position and the one you appear to be fighting against.

Again, it doesn't matter two flying fucks if they are insects or dogs or humans or cockerels. I have said that killing for sport is wrong. I have not at all said "Ooooh, poor insects! Don't hurt them!" so there is absolutely no standpoint on which to base your 'hypocrisy' argument.

You created that angle entirely yourself, as I have been trying to explain. There is nothing hypocritical in my viewpoint, you just fundamentally misunderstood/extrapolated it.

Of course I can see it.......... But if your objection to it is simply that something dies

Yet clearly you don't.


If you're not willing to do something as minimal as eat organic food..."

And so on. You are trying to use information that you are entirely fabricating to support a hypocritical accusation that has no basis. Your post counters elements that haven't even been discussed.
posted by Brockles at 7:24 AM on January 10

Your post counters elements that haven't even been discussed.

Well pardon me, but I did ask "Why is it wrong?" after all. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to think that all of this stuff you've been writing had something to do with articulating why you think it's wrong.

If other ways of killing insects don't matter why did you bother to deny using pesticides?

So is the reason for this that something dies or because sportfighting is wrong or because killing has to be balanced by something? I'm not fabricating anything - I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying. And I was trying to avoid imputing irrational leaps of logic to you but I'll refrain from doing that, leap away.

I have not at all said "Ooooh, poor insects! Don't hurt them!"

Killing them doesn't constitute hurting them? WTF?

If you're going to avoid making any rational, connected argument that's definitely one way to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
posted by XMLicious at 7:53 AM on January 10

With most of the stuff that you have written, you seem to keep focussing on insects and their treatment, and my attitudes toward their treatment.

You (and other people) have also suggested that I am hypocritical by objecting to insects being hurt if I don't care about ALL insects being hurt ALL of the time. I don't think that is a sensible viewpoint, and I don't think it is in the slightest bit relevant to why I think that this - forced combat to the death of insects purely for entertainment - is wrong.

From where I'm sitting, you can't seem to get what I am objecting to without adding loads of other implications that, to my mind, aren't relevant. This may be that you think that these are intrinsically linked, but I can't see how they are. Most of your responses can't separate the concept from the participants and equating 'bad treatment of insects' as a fundamental part of the objection, hence your totally sailing past the point on:

I have not at all said "Ooooh, poor insects! Don't hurt them!"

Killing them doesn't constitute hurting them? WTF?

I was attempting to explain that my opinions on treatment of insects are entirely separate to why this site was wrong. The insects themselves have nothing to do with why this site is wrong. I'm not objecting to the site because it involves insects. So bringing in anything that is purely related to insects (ie their treatment in other regards) is irrelevant.

Maybe I should try another way of clarifying my position:

The killing of an animal/being purely for the sport or entertainment of watching them die is morally wrong.

You ask "Why is it wrong" and I have already answered you - because I think that to kill something you have to have a reasonable justification to need to kill them (or be unable to help it, in the fringe case). Entertainment and 'jollies' are not good enough reasons. End of. That is why it is wrong.

It's as simple as that, and I have said this some time ago. All this talk of 'treatment of insects' and hypocrisy just fogged the thing up. You asked me to explain why, then used all sorts of random associations to suggest that it can't be wrong unless those other, unconnected, aspects were also satisfied/complied with. Maybe the way you think about it is clouding your understanding of how I think about it.


If other ways of killing insects don't matter why did you bother to deny using pesticides?

If you understand my point, why did you bring up the concept of pesticides in the first place? This was not a complex issue, but the stuff you brought in has complicated it. Maybe I should have added the last paragraph and not responded to any of the things you raised. But I thought this was a discussion, not a need for me to repeat the same basic premise again and again until you understand it. I cannot understand why anyone would think that killing for fun would ever be 'right'.
posted by Brockles at 8:37 AM on January 10

I'm saying that to vehemently condemn this while condoning by silence the other treatment of insects is so ridiculously hypocritical as to make the initial objection to bugfights cavilous.

I think this is the point at which we both started arguing at cross purposes. My vehement condemnation has nothing to do with them being insects. So the sentence above is incorrect because it assumes an incorrect motivation for the condemnation. I'm also ignoring the other implication and assumption you made that I wantonly kill insects or tacitly approve if such actions in the rest of my life and as such must be hypocritical. Whether I do or not has no bearing on the validity of my objection.
posted by Brockles at 8:41 AM on January 10

Okay, I guess I have to do a bit more parsing of this for you than I expected. You say:

I think that to kill something you have to have a reasonable justification to need to kill them (or be unable to help it, in the fringe case).

What I'm saying is that living beings (who I will refrain from specifying as insects) were killed in the construction of the building you live in, in the construction of the road you mention driving your car on, by the mine tailings and other industrial effluvients produced in manufacturing the car you mention driving, in cutting down the trees that made the paper that you've written on and printed on your whole life, and to make the less-expensive-than-organic food that you've eaten your whole life.

And I'm asking how it is that giving you this stuff is a more reasonable justification for killing insects, or less able to be helped, than the bugfight guys making a buck to feed their family, or just making a buck? Or even for entertainment, for that matter? Bugs (and other living creatures) get killed in the process of humans producing and obtaining and consuming entertainment all the time. It's certainly a slightly different matter when their death is the subject of the entertainment than when it's instrumental to the entertainment, but are you saying it's a more reasonable justification?

And if those things aren't a more reasonable justification for killing insects, then that's exactly what I'm saying about singling out the bugfights being inconsistent moral judgment. If you tacitly approve of these things, then no, it doesn't make your objection invalid, but again that's not what I'm saying: it makes you a hypocrite, both in your own behavior and in your browbeating of the bugfight ringleaders. It shows that you don't act as if you need a reasonable justification for killing a living creature but you want other people to act that way.

Even if the issue is reasonable justification for killing you don't have any good story for why you can't talk about other un-justifiable killings besides the bugfights. Pretending that the stuff I was saying was just random and out-of-the-blue, because I was talking about insects and you were talking about all living creatures, is silly.

I cannot understand why anyone would think that killing for fun would ever be 'right'.

And I've repeatedly stated that I'm not saying that. If you find it so outrageous that I might have made interpretations of your statements, don't do the same thing to me. You'll make it look as if hypocrisy is a habit for you.
posted by XMLicious at 10:19 AM on January 10

And by the way, I'm not saying that I'm not a hypocrite in any way. As I said I'm highlighting that this is a hypocritical position to take because elsewhere on the net MetaFilter has been accused of being an excessively hypocritical community.
posted by XMLicious at 10:24 AM on January 10

<>And I've repeatedly stated that I'm not saying that.

So why do I need to clarify why it is wrong? You asked the question...

It shows that you don't act as if you need a reasonable justification for killing a living creature but you want other people to act that way.

So not so. Not even close. What it means is that I have a moral judgement on what is or is not a justifiable reason to kill an animal. Just because your point of acceptability doesn't match mine, or the people on the bug's site, does not at all make me a hypocrite. It just stops my moral switch point being consistent with (ie the same as) yours.

If you tacitly approve of these things, then no, it doesn't make your objection invalid, but again that's not what I'm saying: it makes you a hypocrite,

Way off base. Totally.

I really don't think you understand what Hypocrite means, or at the very least are grossly misapplying it. If I said that killing for sport was unacceptable, yet went fox hunting, I'd be a hypocrite. Nothing outside the context of 'killing for sport' can affect whether that statement is hypocritical. It's as simple as that. The emphasis is on 'sport or entertainment' not on killing per se. That should be obvious. I have said there is acceptable (to my moral judgement) reasons for killing but that doing it for sport is not one of those acceptable reasons for me, nor should it be for any decent, educated person (according to my moral principles). There is no hypocricy there, whatsoever. I have clarified my belief - that killing FOR SPORT is wrong. Unless you can find an instance of me killing for sport, while denouncing it as unacceptable behaviour, you are flat out wrong in your accusation. If I'd said 'killing insects is wrong', you'd be right.

I'm happy to discuss why I think that some of the things you mention are more or less acceptable, but it seems trying to hit two things at once confuses the issue, so I'll refrain. None of the stuff about why I have made that moral distinction of acceptable/not acceptable makes me hypocritical. Let's get that shit out of the way first, then we can talk about 'Why you disagree with me about at what point it is acceptable' if you want to afterwards.
posted by Brockles at 10:57 AM on January 10

If you said that "killing for an unreasonable justification when they do it is wrong but killing for an unreasonable justification for me is okay," that would be hypocritical. That isn't some wacky, random, out-of-the-blue definition of hypocrisy, it's exactly the same thing you're talking about with your fox-hunting example. It's having a standard for the public at large that you don't meet yourself.

That first sentence may well be exactly what you've said, you're just refusing to discuss whether any of the instances of killing for you that I've brought up are reasonable justifications. As I said, it's possible to avoid a charge of hypocrisy by not making your entire argument and the same goes for refusing to allow your argument to be examined. So I would agree that I haven't technically demonstrated that you're hypocritical because there may be some mitigating circumstance for you personally in all of these different cases.

But if you were to stop filibustering and we were to get around to examining your "reasonable justification" standard that undergirds the indictment of death during sports fighting - which I concede differs from the reason why I would say it's wrong, it's a much more arbitrary and less defensible standard than I would put forward - I would be really surprised if either all the cases I've mentioned turned out to be reasonable, justifiable killings or alternatively that your principles for determining when a killing is justified turned out to be consistent.

You've gone from "I can't answer those questions because they're totally random, out of the blue, unrelated!" to "I can only answer those questions later on, after you've stopped trying to make the argument that involves them."
posted by XMLicious at 11:44 AM on January 10

"killing for an unreasonable justification when they do it is wrong but killing for an unreasonable justification for me is okay," <>

Well duh. But at no stage did I actually say that, or anything of the sort, which is why the accusation of hypocrisy was utterly unfounded. You entirely created that scenario. Are you saying sorry? I haven't created a standard for the public at large that I don't meet - I don't kill animals for sport. I support my own argument 100% and infallibly. There is no scope for hypocrisy. The only possible view you could have is that my reasons for deeming it such don't match yours. To me, it's just not a good enough reason to kill, and it doesn't need to get any complicated or involved than that for the point to stand.

you're just refusing to discuss whether any of the instances of killing for you that I've brought up are reasonable justifications.

None of your instances are relevant to whether killing for sport is wrong or not, though. They're relevant to how much I respect insects as a life form, but that really doesn't affect the initial point as the two aren't related, as I said.

As I said, it's possible to avoid a charge of hypocrisy by not making your entire argument

I DID make my entire argument. You are the one that added extra complexity to it that wasn't relevant, presumably by misinterpreting exactly why I was objecting to the issue in the first place. I can only surmise that you assumed I objected (initially) because it 'is cruel to treat an insect that way' or something similar, hence why you want to analyse exactly how I perceive the importance of an insects life. A misinterpretation, but you just seem incapable of letting the implications of that misinterpretation go. No analysis of my personal treatment of insects will affect how I present that argument or create a hypocritical element.

You've gone from "I can't answer those questions because they're totally random, out of the blue, unrelated!" to "I can only answer those questions later on, after you've stopped trying to make the argument that involves them."

No, I went from "your added complexity isn't relevant and doesn't make me hypocritical" (as addressing some of that seemed to confuse the issue) to "I can only discuss the irrelevant extra detail once you understand my position, as then you may understand what the fuck I am talking about".

There are justifiable reasons for killing. I gave a few examples, but that only served to confuse the issue for you, it seems. Understanding what I think is a reasonable excuse for killing an animal can't make my position that 'sport' is not one of them hypocritical. It's pretty unambiguous, and not exactly open to interpretation. The only possible source of discussion there is just where, on the moral sliding scale, you and I differ on what makes a reason justifiable, and perhaps how we have come to that conclusion. The worst I could (potentially and according to your own moral code) be now is to be inconsistent with what I define as 'acceptable' but it can only perhaps make me hypocritical of how I view insects. Not death for sport.

What scenarios do you want me to answer?

Food - acceptable
Raw materials - (ie fur for clothing) Acceptable if there is no other source and survival is at stake. If used as a by product of food, then this is also acceptable. But solely for fur for fashion/convenience is not.
'collateral damage' - in the pursuit of someone's daily life where it is unavoidable (driving, walking etc). Acceptable unless a species (rather than individual animals) are at risk - ie no driving through the nest of an endangered species, even if it is a great shortcut.
'wilfully killing for no tangible gain to anyone' - unacceptable (although there is interpretation in 'gain') Pulling the legs off spiders falls into this type of behaviour.

How is that for a start?
posted by Brockles at 1:45 PM on January 10

Arses. Do as well as you can to disentangle my crappy HTML, there.
posted by Brockles at 1:46 PM on January 10

I can only surmise that you assumed I objected (initially) because it 'is cruel to treat an insect that way' or something similar, hence why you want to analyse exactly how I perceive the importance of an insects life.

That was my best guess for your reasoning but I knew that, unless you were a truly unusual individual who both lives in hermitage and posts to MetaFilter, there had to be some pretty glaring inconsistencies between how you live and valuing life so much that even the death of these bugs in Japan requires outcry.

And I think you knew exactly where I was going, that's why you've dragged your heels so hard.

The only possible source of discussion there is just where, on the moral sliding scale, you and I differ on what makes a reason justifiable, and perhaps how we have come to that conclusion.

Unless I can demonstrate that you kill or accept killing for your sake in cases where you do not consider it to have reasonable justification. Which, thanks to your answering these questions and with some pretty reasonable guesses about your life, I ought to be able to do.

Food - acceptable

So, based upon the examples I was giving like the use of pesticides - any killing in relation to the production of food, whether it's to actually eat what you kill, or to increase crop yields, is a reasonable justification to kill? And, since it has bearing on this - is it acceptable to kill anything for food?

(And of course, this does bring up the question of cannibalism and whether you do perhaps distinguish between different forms of life after all, but since that's tangential to my argument I'll leave it be.)

Raw materials - (ie fur for clothing) Acceptable if there is no other source and survival is at stake. If used as a by product of food, then this is also acceptable. But solely for fur for fashion/convenience is not.

So producing shellac, which is made from insects and used as a component of some varnishes for wood, isn't a reasonable justification, right? Nor is making silk, which involves killing the silkworms. So I'm sure you avoid owning anything made out of silk or giving anything made of silk as a gift. Or cotton, of course, which involves considerable use of pesticides to produce.

'collateral damage' - in the pursuit of someone's daily life where it is unavoidable (driving, walking etc). Acceptable unless a species (rather than individual animals) are at risk - ie no driving through the nest of an endangered species, even if it is a great shortcut.

Do you really think that wanting to drive or walk somewhere is a reasonable justification for killing? Would you really take a great shortcut through a nest of a non-endangered species? And if you wouldn't do that would you drive on a road that required the destruction of a nest of non-endangered organisms for its construction? A road built over endangered organisms?

And also, what if in the pursuit of someone's daily life they operate a backhoe or detonate explosives for mining or something else like that which kills easily? Do they get a pass on that? Is it acceptable for you to utilize the products of their work and killing, just not to do the same killing yourself?

How is that for a start?

It's great. Thanks for repeatedly explaining to me how much I'm confused and all but I much more appreciate you responding to my points this way.

Look, man, I totally agree with the spirit of what you're saying and I think your reasoning points in the right direction. I just think that it's disingenuous to not admit that holding a hard line on it is at least a little bit hypocritical for anyone living in the modern world. I think you ought to say "yeah, it's a little bit hypocritical, I see how I willingly benefit from things very similar to what I'm condemning, but this is what I believe." Yeah, that'll diminish your ability to use your principles to righteously bludgeon other people, but you'll be more effective in communicating those principles.
posted by XMLicious at 3:15 PM on January 10

I just think that it's disingenuous to not admit that holding a hard line on it is at least a little bit hypocritical for anyone living in the modern world.

I fail to see how it can be at all hypocritical. The only aspects that are relevant of "Killing animals for sport is wrong" are as follows:

Taking the life of an animal by forcing it to fight and die (especially in unnatural and highly stressful conditions) purely and solely for the sport of watching it fight and die is wrong.

Definitions:
Death: er. Duh.

Sole purpose: No other gain is there. No other consequence. Enjoying watching the spectacle is the sole purpose and result. The death of the animal is fundamental to the purpose. It is making a creative way to kill something at which point its purpose is over.

Sport: Jollies. Fun. Stuff that makes you grin. Laugh even. Get a boner.

There is no ambiguity in this aspect of it. As I say, this is the pure and total reason why I object to the site. As such, a black and white issue present two options - either you believe that sport-killing is acceptable or you do not. It is not the insects that matter - my objection is independent of what was actually in the cage. So no other aspect of insects and how I treat them can possibly make that hypocritical. Any basis that you are trying to generate revolves around insects - the content of the cage is irrelevant to my objection so you are wrong to try and suggest it is hypocritical on that basis, as it is not a parameter.

If it were dogs in the cage. My objection is the same.

If it were cockerels in the cage, my objection is the same.

If it were humans in the cage, my objection is the same.

Just going on and on about my treatment of insects, and trying to work yourself to the point where you can go "Aha! You bought a T-shirt in 1976 and some insects died while it was made, therefore you are a hypocrite!!!" is stupid and still missing the point.

If I'd have said "You shouldn't treat insects like that" then there is some point in your pursuit of this. But if that WAS my position, I'd not have been so emphatic about it, as I don't hold insects in as pure a light as not being hypocritical about that (completely different) statement would require. But that is not the statement I am making, although it IS the one you are trying to prove hypocritical.

To prove me hypocritical, instead of concentrating on the insects alone, you would have to keep the cage, keep the fight, keep the death of one of the occupants of the cage, keep the unnatural concept and find something that I DID find acceptable to place in that scenario. THEN you could investigate my hypocricy. But being as there is no live organism that I would find it acceptable force to fight and die purely for sport, you won't find it.

I just think that it's disingenuous to not admit that holding a hard line on it is at least a little bit hypocritical for anyone living in the modern world.

That's because you STILL think it's about the insects. You're fighting the wrong battle - you still think I am objecting because it is an insect in there. That is why I have been telling you it is irrelevant.
posted by Brockles at 4:52 PM on January 10

So why is killing for sport wrong?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:36 PM on January 10

I didn't watch any of the bugs actually die; I only watched a couple minutes of each, because quite frankly, the bug fights weren't all that exciting.

Presumably it would be okay to put the two insects into the box to fight, as long as one separated them before one of them killed the other.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:39 PM on January 10

Presumably it would be okay to put the two insects into the box to fight, as long as one separated them before one of them killed the other.

Not in my mind. But it'd be better. At least they'd both survive.

So why is killing for sport wrong?

I've answered that more than once. Clearly you don't share my moral standpoint.
posted by Brockles at 7:00 PM on January 10

I'm not entirely sure I've stated my moral standpoint.

Disney's lemming scenes must cause you nightmares. Poor little buggers, pitched off the cliff time and again. And Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom wasn't any better, putting animals into the same shooting location so there'd have to be a confrontation.

Is it wrong to take your kid out fishing?

Is it wrong to fish using worms as bait?

Is it okay to hunt deer using a golden eagle?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:04 PM on January 10