spider pays the price for being a discrace to society

Of course, I'd find it very odd for someone to waste their time doing this on YouTube. Might end up doing the same to bigger targets.

I don't see this as cruelty.

Spiders do not even feel pain. Yes, I said it. It is because they do not possess a cerebral cortex, nor pain receptors. There is also the lack of application of learning to avoid said pain. Avoidance of FURTHER hurt/damage seems to be the most likely biological reason for the perception of pain.

Shouldibuythis

Spiders are not insects, go back to school.

[QUOTE="theharlemshake"][QUOTE="RushMetallica"]What a jerk, he deserves no respect.tocool340

Wow I didn't know people were this sensitive towards a spider being killed...:roll: Like if they had never killed a bug before, btw the spider died as soon as the firecracker exploded so it suffered as much as it would have suffered if someone had stepped on it.cyberdarkkid

There is a difference between crushing a bug when you are younger because you didn't know any better, and doing so now, knowing that it is a creature that feels pain just as we do.

Since you aren't bothered by a "painless" death, how would you like to be blown up instantly? It's OK as long as you don't feel anything, right?

EDIT: Perhaps not pain in the exact manner that we feel it, but undoubtedly some sort of pain.

[QUOTE="RushMetallica"]What a jerk, he deserves no respect.theharlemshake

If it was a furry woodland creature in that video everyone would be all up in arms about it.

[QUOTE="General_X"]If a spider is in my room/house I'll dispose of it.GabuEx

I always just put it outside, myself. That one time I stepped on a spider and then saw it thereafter writhing in pain, still alive, was enough to put me off of that course of action. :P

I usually just let 'em be. They're good pest control.

There is a difference between crushing a bug when you are younger because you didn't know any better, and doing so now, knowing that it is a creature that feels pain just as we do.

Since you aren't bothered by a "painless" death, how would you like to be blown up instantly? It's OK as long as you don't feel anything, right?

EDIT: Perhaps not pain in the exact manner that we feel it, but undoubtedly some sort of pain.

majoras_wrath

Yeah, it's the lack of empathy I find rather disturbing, not the spider being killed. Killing a bug accidentally or without thinking about it is not the same as a mature person tossing one in a jar with a fire cracker just to see it get blown to smithereens. If you can devalue insect and arachnid life (i.e. find satisfaction in intentional killings), you can move on to higher forms of life. Not that you necessarily will... but the possibility exists. A person who can't bear to intentionally kill an insect or arachnid isn't likely to intentionally kill anything else either.

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"]Wow I didn't know people were this sensitive towards a spider being killed...:roll: Like if they had never killed a bug before, btw the spider died as soon as the firecracker exploded so it suffered as much as it would have suffered if someone had stepped on it.majoras_wrath

There is a difference between crushing a bug when you are younger because you didn't know any better, and doing so now, knowing that it is a creature that feels pain just as we do.

Since you aren't bothered by a "painless" death, how would you like to be blown up instantly? It's OK as long as you don't feel anything, right?

EDIT: Perhaps not pain in the exact manner that we feel it, but undoubtedly some sort of pain.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"]Wow I didn't know people were this sensitive towards a spider being killed...:roll: Like if they had never killed a bug before, btw the spider died as soon as the firecracker exploded so it suffered as much as it would have suffered if someone had stepped on it.cyberdarkkid

There is a difference between crushing a bug when you are younger because you didn't know any better, and doing so now, knowing that it is a creature that feels pain just as we do.

Since you aren't bothered by a "painless" death, how would you like to be blown up instantly? It's OK as long as you don't feel anything, right?

EDIT: Perhaps not pain in the exact manner that we feel it, but undoubtedly some sort of pain.

You justified it when you claimed that the spider felt no pain.

And you justified it again when you said "it would've been crushed anyway".

A little bit of outrage and disgust that we as humans can be so cruel to our fellow lifeforms would be nice indeed, rather then simple acceptance.

Yeah, it's the lack of empathy I find rather disturbing, not the spider being killed. Killing a bug accidentally or without thinking about it is not the same as a mature person tossing one in a jar with a fire cracker just to see it get blown to smithereens. If you can devalue insect and arachnid life (i.e. find satisfaction in intentional killings), you can move on to higher forms of life. Not that you necessarily will... but the possibility exists. A person who can't bear to intentionally kill an insect or arachnid isn't likely to intentionally kill anything else either.

pianist

That's something I've often said: if you are willing to place a threshold on life such that anything below it is life to which you are willing to show no respect or dignity, then such a threshold is guaranteed to be utterly arbitrary, and there is nothing at all that can prevent it from slowly sliding upwards. Much better in my view to simply not place one at all, and instead to grant respect and dignity to all life without exception that intends you no harm.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

There is a difference between crushing a bug when you are younger because you didn't know any better, and doing so now, knowing that it is a creature that feels pain just as we do.

Since you aren't bothered by a "painless" death, how would you like to be blown up instantly? It's OK as long as you don't feel anything, right?

EDIT: Perhaps not pain in the exact manner that we feel it, but undoubtedly some sort of pain.

pianist

Yeah, it's the lack of empathy I find rather disturbing, not the spider being killed. Killing a bug accidentally or without thinking about it is not the same as a mature person tossing one in a jar with a fire cracker just to see it get blown to smithereens. If you can devalue insect and arachnid life (i.e. find satisfaction in intentional killings), you can move on to higher forms of life. Not that you necessarily will... but the possibility exists. A person who can't bear to intentionally kill an insect or arachnid isn't likely to intentionally kill anything else either.

They're not likely to do anything, seeing as they'll be too afraid to leave the house and step on a poor innocent ant, or hit a few bees while driving.

Seriously. It's a pest. I kill countless flies, roaches, spiders, mosquitos, moths and ants every year because they annoy me, and so does every single bleeding heart environmentalist in this topic. I'm not going to turn into a psychopath because I don't have empathy for pests.

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"][QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

There is a difference between crushing a bug when you are younger because you didn't know any better, and doing so now, knowing that it is a creature that feels pain just as we do.

Since you aren't bothered by a "painless" death, how would you like to be blown up instantly? It's OK as long as you don't feel anything, right?

EDIT: Perhaps not pain in the exact manner that we feel it, but undoubtedly some sort of pain.

majoras_wrath

You justified it when you claimed that the spider felt no pain.

And you justified it again when you said "it would've been crushed anyway".

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"][QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

There is a difference between crushing a bug when you are younger because you didn't know any better, and doing so now, knowing that it is a creature that feels pain just as we do.

Since you aren't bothered by a "painless" death, how would you like to be blown up instantly? It's OK as long as you don't feel anything, right?

EDIT: Perhaps not pain in the exact manner that we feel it, but undoubtedly some sort of pain.

majoras_wrath

A little bit of outrage and disgust that we as humans can be so cruel to our fellow lifeforms would be nice indeed, rather then simple acceptance.

They're not likely to do anything, seeing as they'll be too afraid to leave the house and step on a poor innocent ant, or hit a few bees while driving.

Seriously. It's a pest. I kill countless flies, roaches, spiders, mosquitos, moths and ants every year because they annoy me, and so does every single bleeding heart environmentalist in this topic. I'm not going to turn into a psychopath because I don't have empathy for pests.

Theokhoth

You kill them - but you probably don't place them in jars and blow them up with fire crackers, start up a raging inferno and then place them in a jar to slowly cook alive, or burn them with a magnifying glass. So I think you missed the point of my post. I don't care that the spider was killed. The manner in which it was killed is more disturbing than its death. People who have no trouble killing lower life forms for their amusement are capable of moving to higher life forms. Doesn't mean they will, just that they can. People who are repulsed by the very notion of killing are not. Gabu understood, you didn't.

A little bit of outrage and disgust that we as humans can be so cruel to our fellow lifeforms would be nice indeed, rather then simple acceptance.

majoras_wrath

I don't even care all that much about the video itself, its the fundamental reason behind the video that bothers me.

[QUOTE="theharlemshake"][QUOTE="RushMetallica"]What a jerk, he deserves no respect.Raikoh_

If it was a furry woodland creature in that video everyone would be all up in arms about it.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]A little bit of outrage and disgust that we as humans can be so cruel to our fellow lifeforms would be nice indeed, rather then simple acceptance.

majoras_wrath

I don't even care all that much about the video itself, its the fundamental reason behind the video that bothers me.

Maybe, but I have more important things/pressing issues to worry about than someone putting a spider in a jar and blowing it up and uploading it to YouTube. Food on the table comes to mind. theharlemshake

This is something I've really never quite understood: the often heard statement of, "Why are you worrying about that? There are more important things to worry about!" The implication being, of course, that someone cannot care about two things at the same time, such that worrying about this prevents someone from worrying about putting food on the table.

Is multitasking that difficult? :P

This is something I've really never quite understood: the often heard statement of, "Why are you worrying about that? There are more important things to worry about!" The implication being, of course, that someone cannot care about two things at the same time, such that worrying about this prevents someone from worrying about putting food on the table.

Is multitasking that difficult? :P

GabuEx

Shh... you'll disturb him as he's trying to put food on the table.

[QUOTE="theharlemshake"]Maybe, but I have more important things/pressing issues to worry about than someone putting a spider in a jar and blowing it up and uploading it to YouTube. Food on the table comes to mind. GabuEx

This is something I've really never quite understood: the often heard statement of, "Why are you worrying about that? There are more important things to worry about!" The implication being, of course, that someone cannot care about two things at the same time, such that worrying about this prevents someone from worrying about putting food on the table.

Is multitasking that difficult? :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="theharlemshake"]Maybe, but I have more important things/pressing issues to worry about than someone putting a spider in a jar and blowing it up and uploading it to YouTube. Food on the table comes to mind. theharlemshake

This is something I've really never quite understood: the often heard statement of, "Why are you worrying about that? There are more important things to worry about!" The implication being, of course, that someone cannot care about two things at the same time, such that worrying about this prevents someone from worrying about putting food on the table.

Is multitasking that difficult? :P

Well you're telling us that you can't worry about this because you have more important things to worry about. If you need to prioritize the things that you worry about, then the only logical conclusion I can make is that you can't worry about both of them... no? Otherwise it would be irrelevant which is more important.

I'm honestly just trying to understand that statement, because I've seen it made on a number of occasions (an often-seen one being, "How can you worry about animals when there are people starving in Africa?" in response to threads on animal cruelty) and it has always just baffled the heck out of me. I would like to think it isn't just an excuse people invent to justify their not caring about something without appearing callous, but I have difficulty finding any other way to interpret it.

[QUOTE="theharlemshake"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This is something I've really never quite understood: the often heard statement of, "Why are you worrying about that? There are more important things to worry about!" The implication being, of course, that someone cannot care about two things at the same time, such that worrying about this prevents someone from worrying about putting food on the table.

Is multitasking that difficult? :P

GabuEx

Well you're telling us that you can't worry about this because you have more important things to worry about. If you need to prioritize the things that you worry about, then the only logical conclusion I can make is that you can't worry about both of them... no?

I'm honestly just trying to understand that statement, because I've seen it made on a number of occasions (an often-seen one being, "How can you worry about animals when there are people starving in Africa?" in response to threads on animal cruelty) and it has always just baffled the heck out of me. I would like to think it isn't just an excuse people invent to justify their not caring about something without appearing callous, but I have difficulty finding any other way to interpret it.

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]"BAWWWWW SPIDER CRUELTY" Crazy video :Davatar_genius

I'd rather not get enjoyment out of another creature's suffering, no matter how small.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="carrot-cake"]
Has it been established that they do not?

Shhadow_Viper

Not that I know of. But then again, I'm not the one who said that I saw an animal writhing in pain.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very against killing ANYTHING just for the hell of it. But one must take care not to apply human characteristics to animals, lest we end up like those losers who dress our dogs up in sweaters and hats.

All I'm saying is that spiders certainly respond to stimuli. But has it ever been determined that they are able to feel pain?

I don't know. Maybe so. That's why I asked.

Single celled organisms react to stimuli, but it's sort of hard to imagine that something without a nervous system could be capable of feeling "pain".

Now...spiders are certainly more advanced than bacteria and protozoans. But their nervous systems are a lot less advanced than ours. We can be very reasonably certain that birds and other mammals are capable of feeling pain, because they are more like us and they often exhibit specific reactions that are unique to pain-causing stimuli. Poke a rat, and it might react as if it doesn't like being poked. Poke a rat with a red hot poker, though, and the rat will actually scream.

But with spiders, it's a bit more difficult to determine if they can feel "pain". Furthermore, with something like a spider, there's less of an evolutionary advantage to "feeling pain". Spiders don't experiment, they are almost completely driven by instinct. When have you ever seen a spider "learn" to avoid something which causes "pain"?

But with spiders, it's a bit more difficult to determine if they can feel "pain". Furthermore, with something like a spider, there's less of an evolutionary advantage to "feeling pain". Spiders don't experiment, they are almost completely driven by instinct. When have you ever seen a spider "learn" to avoid something which causes "pain"?

MrGeezer

Well, I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that there's no evolutionary advantage... it seems to me that it would be the same evolutionary advantage that it has in any other animal: "that caused a stimuli that was unpleasant; therefore I should not do it". It doesn't have to be associated with learning; even as a reflexive response to the stimuli it would still be useful.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I always just put it outside, myself. That one time I stepped on a spider and then saw it thereafter writhing in pain, still alive, was enough to put me off of that course of action. :P

tocool340

Has it been established that spiders do feel pain?

Again, single celled organisms need to eat in order to survive. Single celled organisms react to outside stimuli, and move away from things that can harm them.

They also completely lack any kind of nervous system.

So given that mobile heterotrophs CAN and DO act towards their own self preservation without even having even a rudimentary nervous system, then we're left with two options. Either pain doesn't NEED a nervous system, or it IS possible for mobile hunting/scavenging organisms to survive without the ability to feel pain.

If it's the former, and pain can be felt without even any kind of nervous system present, then that sort of means that vegans cause just as much pain and suffering as anyone else. Does it hurt when you pick a rose off of a bush?

And if it's the latter, then the fact that spiders exist and are able to avoid harmful stimuli means that they aren't necessarily able to feel pain.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

But with spiders, it's a bit more difficult to determine if they can feel "pain". Furthermore, with something like a spider, there's less of an evolutionary advantage to "feeling pain". Spiders don't experiment, they are almost completely driven by instinct. When have you ever seen a spider "learn" to avoid something which causes "pain"?

GabuEx

Well, I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that there's no evolutionary advantage... it seems to me that it would be the same evolutionary advantage that it has in any other animal: "that caused a stimuli that was unpleasant; therefore I should not do it". It doesn't have to be associated with learning; even as a reflexive response to the stimuli it would still be useful.

Except that if no learning is involved, then the "avoidance" response could at least hypothetically be induced without the actual pain ever being present. All that is required is for the spider to be programmed to react certain ways with certain stimuli. Which, by the way, DOES happen in nature. Animals engage in avoidance behaviour all the time (even higher animals such as ourselves) without the stimulus ever being "painful".

[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]

I am quite sure response to negative stimuli would be pain, that's how they survive by instinctually avoiding it. I have difficulty imagining a complex organism surviving if it could not realize it was being physically damaged and avoid that stimuli.

GabuEx

I think the question, though, is whether it's truly pain as we understand it. Plants as well respond to stimuli threatening their survival, but their having no central nervous system makes it difficult to assert that they perceive that stimuli as true suffering in the same way that we do.

Exactly. Even animals as complex as humans often do show the same kinds of reactions. You can feel heat, and feel the need to move to a cooler area, even without the heat being sufficient to cause "pain".

WE engage in avoidance behaviour, even when no pain is present. So when we're talking about animals with MUCH simpler nervous systems, and very limited capacity to actually learn from pain, what proof is there that the avoidance behaviour exhibited isn't done in the ABSENCE of pain?

Wow I didn't know people were this sensitive towards a spider being killed...:roll: Like if they had never killed a bug before, btw the spider died as soon as the firecracker exploded so it suffered as much as it would have suffered if someone had stepped on it.cyberdarkkid

Again, that's not the point.

Even if you absolutely hate spiders and don't mind killing them, there are still valid and invalid REASONS for killing them.

The guy in the video clearly did that because he just plain wanted to kill something. And THAT overrides any questions about whether or not the spider actually deserved to die.

Lots of people kill spiders for valid reasons, even if that reason is irrational fear. But THIS guy actually took the time to put a spider in a jar. It's in a jar, so right there we've eliminated any NEED to kill it. He wasn't too scared to catch it, so the fear argument doesn't fly. So he just as well could have walked a few blocks away and dumped the spider into some bushes. You might say, "well, maybe he was too lazy to do that". But that argument doesn't work either, since he took the time to get explosives, film the death, and then post it onto youtube.

He just wanted to kill something, plain and simple. And a spider fits the bill, because most people don't like spiders.

And THAT is why people take objection to this. Not because they're all like, "oh no, spiders shouldn't die!" But rather because the person who killed this spider is exhibiting extremely disturbing behaviour. It's not even really about the spider, it's more about why the hell anyone would actually do this.

Some people just don't get it. To close-minded, any sort of deep thinking goes in one ear and out the other.

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"]Wow I didn't know people were this sensitive towards a spider being killed...:roll: Like if they had never killed a bug before, btw the spider died as soon as the firecracker exploded so it suffered as much as it would have suffered if someone had stepped on it.MrGeezer

Again, that's not the point.

Even if you absolutely hate spiders and don't mind killing them, there are still valid and invalid REASONS for killing them.

The guy in the video clearly did that because he just plain wanted to kill something. And THAT overrides any questions about whether or not the spider actually deserved to die.

Lots of people kill spiders for valid reasons, even if that reason is irrational fear. But THIS guy actually took the time to put a spider in a jar. It's in a jar, so right there we've eliminated any NEED to kill it. He wasn't too scared to catch it, so the fear argument doesn't fly. So he just as well could have walked a few blocks away and dumped the spider into some bushes. You might say, "well, maybe he was too lazy to do that". But that argument doesn't work either, since he took the time to get explosives, film the death, and then post it onto youtube.

He just wanted to kill something, plain and simple. And a spider fits the bill, because most people don't like spiders.

And THAT is why people take objection to this. Not because they're all like, "oh no, spiders shouldn't die!" But rather because the person who killed this spider is exhibiting extremely disturbing behaviour. It's not even really about the spider, it's more about why the hell anyone would actually do this.

This video is the poorest foundation I've ever seen such a discussion built on. I could understand if this were a video of that woman (I can't remember) forcing her heels through a cat (or puppy?), but come on.

theharlemshake

It's not poor at all, because it's the principle of the thing.

Why is it any less serious because it is a spider involved? Intent is EVERYTHING here. The only reason you'd "understand" if it were a dog is because they're cute, fluffy and more appealing than a spider. The actual act and intent of the person is what should be focused on, not the animal itself.