Repulsive98 wrote

Kendosaur wrote

Mickers wrote

Erudite wrote

Prohibit wrote

Click to View Content

Click to View Content

Erudite wrote

Lavish wrote

Erudite wrote

Rask wrote This just in, we can't kill animals to feed ourselves.

Mickers wrote It's a program where they need to survive.

So if they started starving to death Bear Grylls wouldn't send in a medical team or food for them?

He would. It would just be prepackaged meat that was harvested in even worst conditions than the way this pig was.

So the killing of the pigs on TV by the contestants was unnecessary.
It doesn't matter to me if this happens in other places or in worse conditions [in this context.]
All I'm concerned with is was it necessary for it to happen on the island and on TV?
So far I can't see one good reason why.

So far I don't see a good reason why not. Just saying.

You can't see why killing animals, graphically, on TV is unnecessary?

No one says you have to watch it. You should know what to expect. Don't like it don't watch it. It is honestly that simple. Most animals die in a lot meaner ways than what the pigs did.

Your ignorance pains me. Just because you don't watch it, doesn't mean the pig isn't slaughtered when it is not needed.

Erudite. Bear Grylls shows you what to do if you was in that sort of situation.

There are methods of showing people what to do in that situation besides actually killing animals.
When showing people how to give CPR we don't actually give a human CPR, we do it to a dummy and that works sufficiently well.

Besides, you could maybe make that argument for his Born Survivor series, but for the Island? I don't think so.
It's an entertainment show, maybe you could stretch that to social experiment, but it's not being made to inform people of what to do in a survival situation.
The girls group split up and wandered around in the jungle for 2 days starving and dehydrated before they managed to find each other again.

That's not really informative.

Repulsive98 wrote

Kendosaur wrote

Mickers wrote

Erudite wrote

Prohibit wrote

Click to View Content

Click to View Content

Erudite wrote

Lavish wrote

Erudite wrote

Rask wrote This just in, we can't kill animals to feed ourselves.

Mickers wrote It's a program where they need to survive.

So if they started starving to death Bear Grylls wouldn't send in a medical team or food for them?

He would. It would just be prepackaged meat that was harvested in even worst conditions than the way this pig was.

So the killing of the pigs on TV by the contestants was unnecessary.
It doesn't matter to me if this happens in other places or in worse conditions [in this context.]
All I'm concerned with is was it necessary for it to happen on the island and on TV?
So far I can't see one good reason why.

So far I don't see a good reason why not. Just saying.

You can't see why killing animals, graphically, on TV is unnecessary?

No one says you have to watch it. You should know what to expect. Don't like it don't watch it. It is honestly that simple. Most animals die in a lot meaner ways than what the pigs did.

Your ignorance pains me. Just because you don't watch it, doesn't mean the pig isn't slaughtered when it is not needed.

Erudite. Bear Grylls shows you what to do if you was in that sort of situation.

Really? Stab the pig in the throat to kill it?

Wow. Would never have guessed that, never though about it like that.

Don't be stupid, this was a publicity stunt. This was done to purposely cause an uproar which would infact boost ratings. The death of the pig was unnecessary. If you really think that the producers of the show would let the contestants die of starvation then you really need to educate yourself regarding these sorts of shows. It is an act. It isn't a 24/7 show. You do not know what is happening every minute of the day. They show you what they want to. For all we know, they could be sleeping in a hotel at night and havig a full english every morning.

Them people who are holding those signs look like jobless plebs. We're always going to eat meat you really need to figure out all this protesting is a complete waste of your time. The pig was a vital source of protein which the whole group obviously needed, if we weren't supposed to eat any sort of meat we wouldn't be able to digest it.

I find it hilarious that these people focus on this one petty 'issue' while in countries like Nepal are going through great mayhem.

360MoTioN wrote Them people who are holding those signs look like jobless plebs. We're always going to eat meat you really need to figure out all this protesting is a complete waste of your time. The pig was a vital source of protein which the whole group obviously needed, if we weren't supposed to eat any sort of meat we wouldn't be able to digest it.

I find it hilarious that these people focus on this one petty 'issue' while in countries like Nepal are going through great mayhem.

a) They had satellite phones to ring for vital sources of protein if they needed them.
b) Bear could have put other sources of energy on the island for them to find.

The issue isn't whether or not they can eat meat it's whether or not they should have.
I find it hilarious that by that logic every problem in your life could be made insignificant just by saying, 'Why are you focusing on that when people are having a hard time in Nepal right now?'

Erudite wrote

360MoTioN wrote Them people who are holding those signs look like jobless plebs. We're always going to eat meat you really need to figure out all this protesting is a complete waste of your time. The pig was a vital source of protein which the whole group obviously needed, if we weren't supposed to eat any sort of meat we wouldn't be able to digest it.

I find it hilarious that these people focus on this one petty 'issue' while in countries like Nepal are going through great mayhem.

a) They had satellite phones to ring for vital sources of protein if they needed them.
b) Bear could have put other sources of energy on the island for them to find.

The issue isn't whether or not they can eat meat it's whether or not they should have.
I find it hilarious that by that logic every problem in your life could be made insignificant just by saying, 'Why are you focusing on that when people are having a hard time in Nepal right now?'

I can tell you that most of the people replying aren't getting the point you're trying to make. I will dumb it down for them.

Man didn't need meat therefore man didn't need to kill meet.

Erudite wrote

360MoTioN wrote Them people who are holding those signs look like jobless plebs. We're always going to eat meat you really need to figure out all this protesting is a complete waste of your time. The pig was a vital source of protein which the whole group obviously needed, if we weren't supposed to eat any sort of meat we wouldn't be able to digest it.

I find it hilarious that these people focus on this one petty 'issue' while in countries like Nepal are going through great mayhem.

a) They had satellite phones to ring for vital sources of protein if they needed them.
b) Bear could have put other sources of energy on the island for them to find.

The issue isn't whether or not they can eat meat it's whether or not they should have.
I find it hilarious that by that logic every problem in your life could be made insignificant just by saying, 'Why are you focusing on that when people are having a hard time in Nepal right now?'

You're arguing with people about the slaughter of a pig, that is something which is very insignificant. If the killing of a pig in a humane way is so terrible, then purchasing meat from a local supermarket must warrant a death sentence.

Bear Grylls is world-renowned for killing animals in his show, this is no different. I think most sane people would have killed that boar/pig if they were on that show.

Rin wrote

Erudite wrote

360MoTioN wrote Them people who are holding those signs look like jobless plebs. We're always going to eat meat you really need to figure out all this protesting is a complete waste of your time. The pig was a vital source of protein which the whole group obviously needed, if we weren't supposed to eat any sort of meat we wouldn't be able to digest it.

I find it hilarious that these people focus on this one petty 'issue' while in countries like Nepal are going through great mayhem.

a) They had satellite phones to ring for vital sources of protein if they needed them.
b) Bear could have put other sources of energy on the island for them to find.

The issue isn't whether or not they can eat meat it's whether or not they should have.
I find it hilarious that by that logic every problem in your life could be made insignificant just by saying, 'Why are you focusing on that when people are having a hard time in Nepal right now?'

I can tell you that most of the people replying aren't getting the point you're trying to make. I will dumb it down for them.

Man didn't need meat therefore man didn't need to kill meet.

Let me explain something to you there are probably 10000s of credible scientific articles showing us that eating meat in the correct quantities is actually very beneficial to your health. Yes you can still survive without eating meat but it's a choice for everyone to make, you don't have to eat meat.

360MoTioN wrote

Rin wrote

Erudite wrote

360MoTioN wrote Them people who are holding those signs look like jobless plebs. We're always going to eat meat you really need to figure out all this protesting is a complete waste of your time. The pig was a vital source of protein which the whole group obviously needed, if we weren't supposed to eat any sort of meat we wouldn't be able to digest it.

I find it hilarious that these people focus on this one petty 'issue' while in countries like Nepal are going through great mayhem.

a) They had satellite phones to ring for vital sources of protein if they needed them.
b) Bear could have put other sources of energy on the island for them to find.

The issue isn't whether or not they can eat meat it's whether or not they should have.
I find it hilarious that by that logic every problem in your life could be made insignificant just by saying, 'Why are you focusing on that when people are having a hard time in Nepal right now?'

I can tell you that most of the people replying aren't getting the point you're trying to make. I will dumb it down for them.

Man didn't need meat therefore man didn't need to kill meet.

Let me explain something to you there are probably 10000s of credible scientific articles showing us that eating meat in the correct quantities is actually very beneficial to your health. Yes you can still survive without eating meat but it's a choice for everyone to make, you don't have to eat meat.

They didn't need to kill the pigs not because they can be vegetarians, you're completely missing the point.
They didn't need to kill the pigs because with one phone call they would have been brought food.
Their lives were not in danger. It was an obvious publicity stunt by the show-runners.

You're arguing with people about the slaughter of a pig, that is something which is very insignificant. If the killing of a pig in a humane way is so terrible, then purchasing meat from a local supermarket must warrant a death sentence.

Bear Grylls is world-renowned for killing animals in his show, this is no different. I think most sane people would have killed that boar/pig if they were on that show.

Maybe you should read through all of the other posts on this topic, you're bring up old points which were addressed in the first 3 pages.

Erudite wrote

360MoTioN wrote

Let me explain something to you there are probably 10000s of credible scientific articles showing us that eating meat in the correct quantities is actually very beneficial to your health. Yes you can still survive without eating meat but it's a choice for everyone to make, you don't have to eat meat.

They didn't need to kill the pigs not because they can be vegetarians, you're completely missing the point.
They didn't need to kill the pigs because with one phone call they would have been brought food.
Their lives were not in danger. It was an obvious publicity stunt by the show-runners.

I can't believe you said they could've been brought food and you say I'm completely missing the point.
It's a TV show if they were brought food then there would be no point in this specific TV show existing.
Deprivation of Vitamins, Minerals, protein and energy can seriously have a big toll on your body and could have permanent effects on your body. The thing is you say they didn't need to eat the pigs, well really that is wrong as they did in able to keep their energy levels up. The whole point of the show is to play out a realistic scenario and how people would cope, they've signed a contract so if they want to quit as they're not eating enough then they won't get paid.

360MoTioN wrote

Erudite wrote

360MoTioN wrote

Let me explain something to you there are probably 10000s of credible scientific articles showing us that eating meat in the correct quantities is actually very beneficial to your health. Yes you can still survive without eating meat but it's a choice for everyone to make, you don't have to eat meat.

They didn't need to kill the pigs not because they can be vegetarians, you're completely missing the point.
They didn't need to kill the pigs because with one phone call they would have been brought food.
Their lives were not in danger. It was an obvious publicity stunt by the show-runners.

I can't believe you said they could've been brought food and you say I'm completely missing the point.
It's a TV show if they were brought food then there would be no point in this specific TV show existing.
Deprivation of Vitamins, Minerals, protein and energy can seriously have a big toll on your body and could have permanent effects on your body. The thing is you say they didn't need to eat the pigs, well really that is wrong as they did in able to keep their energy levels up. The whole point of the show is to play out a realistic scenario and how people would cope, they've signed a contract so if they want to quit as they're not eating enough then they won't get paid.

Exactly, I understand that it would be boring if they were just being brought food, which is why I have said that Bear could have filled the island with plant-life for them to find and eat. [Which you would have seen if you had read through the rest of the posts]

That is a realistic scenario as well because humans used to be herbivores. If anything it would be seeing if we could survive farther back than cave-men, when we used to live in trees, etc.
Besides, I have yet to see archaeological remains of machetes, hiking boots, and rain coats from 30,000 years ago.