Of course it isn't, I'm just saying that them walking around the island for hours at end looking for a plant to eat wouldn't exactly be my cup of tea. I'm with you though on the fact that watching an animal or just anything for that matter die is not entertaining.

"Could have" being the key words there. Well it is partially different, killing a pig is different to killing a live crocodile when if we're talking about danger and possible risks. People seek entertainment, they like to see the dangerous side to things. To me it all just seems like adrenaline. If you watch say, a film about a vigilante and you find it entertaining; does that mean you condone being a vigilante (poor example I know)?

Yeah, upon re-reading the source I realised that they had in fact received prior training on such things. To my understanding and own interpretation of torture though; they didn't torture the animals, but by dictionary definition they did. Excuse that last post.

Well surely going off of what you think, we don't need to breath do we not? We can just get a machine to do it for us but yet we carry on to breath because it's human nature. Most people don't like to ask for help, they like to be independent and I feel as though the people on the program feel this way but it is worse for them considering that they are on a TV show and their every action is broadcasted to millions.

Population wrote

Click to View Content

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

- The contestants would have been brought food if they were in dire need of it, so they didn't need to kill the pigs/crocodile.
- Therefore it was unnecessary to kill the pigs/crocodile.

Surely that would defy the whole point of the program though? They are on the island to survive with any means possible, it would kind of take the whole "survival" aspect away from the show if every time the contestants face a problem, in comes Bear Grylls on a magical pony to save everyone.

Much worse things happen in the world than a pig or a crocodile being killed, I think the people that are sending in complaints are very much entitled to do so but to me it all just seems wasteful. Do something better with your time than holding up signs to show everyone how 'wrong' it was, it has already happened. Move on.

Maybe Prohibit was right considering that has already been addressed too.
Bear could have put plant-life around the island for them to find and eat. That would still be survival.

People don't hold signs up to show how wrong it was so that maybe time could be reversed and it could be prevented.
They do it to stop it from happening again.

I understand that he could have put plants and such around the island for them to eat but is that really that entertaining? Watching people walk around for hours at a time searching for a plant that 'looks healthy' but in reality could kill you doesn't sound very survival-like to me. Plus, what would happen when the plants that he planted ran out? Surely then they would have to resort to the killing of an animal, well, that or they could just bust out their flip phone that completely defies the survival aspect of the program.

Obviously I understand that. I'm just saying that it's already done. It has happened, and do you think those people holding those signs have actually changed anything? Same with all the people writing complaints. What are they actually accomplishing? As we speak I'm sure many different animals are being slaughtered in much more horrific ways.

I don't understand why the people protesting feel the need to take their time to make their silly little puns about Bear Grylls when they could actually be doing something productive with their time. Take a shot at KFC or another large fast-food company that treats animals in a disgraceful way. Each to their own I guess.

So watching animals get killed is entertaining? That's essentially what you're saying when you say that them looking for plant-life wouldn't be entertaining.
And I really don't care if it wouldn't be entertaining, if people get their kicks watching animals get killed then I don't care about how entertained they are.

As for them looking for plants that 'look healthy but could kill you' they had a couple of days training which could have included which food to eat and how to prepare it.
Also, why are people so concerned about the safety of the contestants when it comes to them eating plants, but not them fishing rocky shores or killing a live crocodile which could have tore their limbs off?

In this case it is obvious that they did not torture the animals. They killed them because they needed to.

Their lack of training would go towards the idea that they did torture the animals, intentionally or not [torture as a verb just means to inflict severe pain on something.]
They didn't need to kill them for the reasons above.

Of course it isn't, I'm just saying that them walking around the island for hours at end looking for a plant to eat wouldn't exactly be my cup of tea. I'm with you though on the fact that watching an animal or just anything for that matter die is not entertaining

Well if neither of our options are entertaining surely the one which leads to less suffering is the correct option?

"Could have" being the key words there. Well it is partially different, killing a pig is different to killing a live crocodile when if we're talking about danger and possible risks. People seek entertainment, they like to see the dangerous side to things. To me it all just seems like adrenaline. If you watch say, a film about a vigilante and you find it entertaining; does that mean you condone being a vigilante (poor example I know)?

People aren't only annoyed by the killing of the pigs, they just seem to have taken centre stage, people are also angry about the killing of the crocodile.
As for the dangers with the pigs, they could have become infected with something on the island. Cooking on a fire isn't a sure-fire way to get rid of diseases, so they could have been infected with something that way.
This argument from the danger of eating plants is baseless.

Well surely going off of what you think, we don't need to breath do we not? We can just get a machine to do it for us but yet we carry on to breath because it's human nature. Most people don't like to ask for help, they like to be independent and I feel as though the people on the program feel this way but it is worse for them considering that they are on a TV show and their every action is broadcasted to millions.

Breathing doesn't harm other people, it doesn't kill other people.
Putting everyone on breathing machines just because we can would be unnecessary for reasons beside human nature, and is human nature a good excuse anyway?
A person might want to be independent, stay in their home starving all week, and then kill their next-door neighbours cat for food.
Would 'It's human nature' stand up in court when they had other alternatives available? Of course not.

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

Click to View Content

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

- The contestants would have been brought food if they were in dire need of it, so they didn't need to kill the pigs/crocodile.
- Therefore it was unnecessary to kill the pigs/crocodile.

Surely that would defy the whole point of the program though? They are on the island to survive with any means possible, it would kind of take the whole "survival" aspect away from the show if every time the contestants face a problem, in comes Bear Grylls on a magical pony to save everyone.

Much worse things happen in the world than a pig or a crocodile being killed, I think the people that are sending in complaints are very much entitled to do so but to me it all just seems wasteful. Do something better with your time than holding up signs to show everyone how 'wrong' it was, it has already happened. Move on.

Maybe Prohibit was right considering that has already been addressed too.
Bear could have put plant-life around the island for them to find and eat. That would still be survival.

People don't hold signs up to show how wrong it was so that maybe time could be reversed and it could be prevented.
They do it to stop it from happening again.

I understand that he could have put plants and such around the island for them to eat but is that really that entertaining? Watching people walk around for hours at a time searching for a plant that 'looks healthy' but in reality could kill you doesn't sound very survival-like to me. Plus, what would happen when the plants that he planted ran out? Surely then they would have to resort to the killing of an animal, well, that or they could just bust out their flip phone that completely defies the survival aspect of the program.

Obviously I understand that. I'm just saying that it's already done. It has happened, and do you think those people holding those signs have actually changed anything? Same with all the people writing complaints. What are they actually accomplishing? As we speak I'm sure many different animals are being slaughtered in much more horrific ways.

I don't understand why the people protesting feel the need to take their time to make their silly little puns about Bear Grylls when they could actually be doing something productive with their time. Take a shot at KFC or another large fast-food company that treats animals in a disgraceful way. Each to their own I guess.

So watching animals get killed is entertaining? That's essentially what you're saying when you say that them looking for plant-life wouldn't be entertaining.
And I really don't care if it wouldn't be entertaining, if people get their kicks watching animals get killed then I don't care about how entertained they are.

As for them looking for plants that 'look healthy but could kill you' they had a couple of days training which could have included which food to eat and how to prepare it.
Also, why are people so concerned about the safety of the contestants when it comes to them eating plants, but not them fishing rocky shores or killing a live crocodile which could have tore their limbs off?

In this case it is obvious that they did not torture the animals. They killed them because they needed to.

Their lack of training would go towards the idea that they did torture the animals, intentionally or not [torture as a verb just means to inflict severe pain on something.]
They didn't need to kill them for the reasons above.

Of course it isn't, I'm just saying that them walking around the island for hours at end looking for a plant to eat wouldn't exactly be my cup of tea. I'm with you though on the fact that watching an animal or just anything for that matter die is not entertaining

Well if neither of our options are entertaining surely the one which leads to less suffering is the correct option?

"Could have" being the key words there. Well it is partially different, killing a pig is different to killing a live crocodile when if we're talking about danger and possible risks. People seek entertainment, they like to see the dangerous side to things. To me it all just seems like adrenaline. If you watch say, a film about a vigilante and you find it entertaining; does that mean you condone being a vigilante (poor example I know)?

People aren't only annoyed by the killing of the pigs, they just seem to have taken centre stage, people are also angry about the killing of the crocodile.
As for the dangers with the pigs, they could have become infected with something on the island. Cooking on a fire isn't a sure-fire way to get rid of diseases, so they could have been infected with something that way.
This argument from the danger of eating plants is baseless.

Well surely going off of what you think, we don't need to breath do we not? We can just get a machine to do it for us but yet we carry on to breath because it's human nature. Most people don't like to ask for help, they like to be independent and I feel as though the people on the program feel this way but it is worse for them considering that they are on a TV show and their every action is broadcasted to millions.

Breathing doesn't harm other people, it doesn't kill other people.
Putting everyone on breathing machines just because we can would be unnecessary for reasons beside human nature, and is human nature a good excuse anyway?
A person might want to be independent, stay in their home starving all week, and then kill their next-door neighbours cat for food.
Would 'It's human nature' stand up in court when they had other alternatives available? Of course not.

That's implying that people will always follow the correct option as to the one which will get more ratings and boost publicity. ;D

Obviously I've already stated my opinion about the killing of the pig but being that the crocodile was a rare species it doesn't necessarily settle with me. The producers could have taken their time to do the research on the island itself and what inhabits it, I agree that the producers are to blame for the death of the crocodile. More so than the actual people that killed it.

But again, the constant key word is that they "could have." At least with a crocodile it's pretty much a sure thing that it will become hostile if you approach it. What they did wasn't really acceptable but I still think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

Breathing was a bad example, the whole point of it was the 'because we can' attitude. I don't necessarily think that is what one would call independence. A sane person anyways. No, 'It's human nature' would not but I'm darn sure pleading insanity would.

Comparing a man eating his neighbours cat is just a tad out of proportion pertaining to the real matter at hand and what we are discussing.

Population wrote

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

Click to View Content

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

Erudite wrote

Population wrote

- The contestants would have been brought food if they were in dire need of it, so they didn't need to kill the pigs/crocodile.
- Therefore it was unnecessary to kill the pigs/crocodile.

Surely that would defy the whole point of the program though? They are on the island to survive with any means possible, it would kind of take the whole "survival" aspect away from the show if every time the contestants face a problem, in comes Bear Grylls on a magical pony to save everyone.

Much worse things happen in the world than a pig or a crocodile being killed, I think the people that are sending in complaints are very much entitled to do so but to me it all just seems wasteful. Do something better with your time than holding up signs to show everyone how 'wrong' it was, it has already happened. Move on.

Maybe Prohibit was right considering that has already been addressed too.
Bear could have put plant-life around the island for them to find and eat. That would still be survival.

People don't hold signs up to show how wrong it was so that maybe time could be reversed and it could be prevented.
They do it to stop it from happening again.

I understand that he could have put plants and such around the island for them to eat but is that really that entertaining? Watching people walk around for hours at a time searching for a plant that 'looks healthy' but in reality could kill you doesn't sound very survival-like to me. Plus, what would happen when the plants that he planted ran out? Surely then they would have to resort to the killing of an animal, well, that or they could just bust out their flip phone that completely defies the survival aspect of the program.

Obviously I understand that. I'm just saying that it's already done. It has happened, and do you think those people holding those signs have actually changed anything? Same with all the people writing complaints. What are they actually accomplishing? As we speak I'm sure many different animals are being slaughtered in much more horrific ways.

I don't understand why the people protesting feel the need to take their time to make their silly little puns about Bear Grylls when they could actually be doing something productive with their time. Take a shot at KFC or another large fast-food company that treats animals in a disgraceful way. Each to their own I guess.

So watching animals get killed is entertaining? That's essentially what you're saying when you say that them looking for plant-life wouldn't be entertaining.
And I really don't care if it wouldn't be entertaining, if people get their kicks watching animals get killed then I don't care about how entertained they are.

As for them looking for plants that 'look healthy but could kill you' they had a couple of days training which could have included which food to eat and how to prepare it.
Also, why are people so concerned about the safety of the contestants when it comes to them eating plants, but not them fishing rocky shores or killing a live crocodile which could have tore their limbs off?

In this case it is obvious that they did not torture the animals. They killed them because they needed to.

Their lack of training would go towards the idea that they did torture the animals, intentionally or not [torture as a verb just means to inflict severe pain on something.]
They didn't need to kill them for the reasons above.

Of course it isn't, I'm just saying that them walking around the island for hours at end looking for a plant to eat wouldn't exactly be my cup of tea. I'm with you though on the fact that watching an animal or just anything for that matter die is not entertaining

Well if neither of our options are entertaining surely the one which leads to less suffering is the correct option?

"Could have" being the key words there. Well it is partially different, killing a pig is different to killing a live crocodile when if we're talking about danger and possible risks. People seek entertainment, they like to see the dangerous side to things. To me it all just seems like adrenaline. If you watch say, a film about a vigilante and you find it entertaining; does that mean you condone being a vigilante (poor example I know)?

People aren't only annoyed by the killing of the pigs, they just seem to have taken centre stage, people are also angry about the killing of the crocodile.
As for the dangers with the pigs, they could have become infected with something on the island. Cooking on a fire isn't a sure-fire way to get rid of diseases, so they could have been infected with something that way.
This argument from the danger of eating plants is baseless.

Well surely going off of what you think, we don't need to breath do we not? We can just get a machine to do it for us but yet we carry on to breath because it's human nature. Most people don't like to ask for help, they like to be independent and I feel as though the people on the program feel this way but it is worse for them considering that they are on a TV show and their every action is broadcasted to millions.

Breathing doesn't harm other people, it doesn't kill other people.
Putting everyone on breathing machines just because we can would be unnecessary for reasons beside human nature, and is human nature a good excuse anyway?
A person might want to be independent, stay in their home starving all week, and then kill their next-door neighbours cat for food.
Would 'It's human nature' stand up in court when they had other alternatives available? Of course not.

That's implying that people will always follow the correct option as to the one which will get more ratings and boost publicity. ;D

Obviously I've already stated my opinion about the killing of the pig but being that the crocodile was a rare species it doesn't necessarily settle with me. The producers could have taken their time to do the research on the island itself and what inhabits it, I agree that the producers are to blame for the death of the crocodile. More so than the actual people that killed it.

Is there not an inconsistency there?
If the population of a species is all that we must taken into account before slaughtering it what is the problem with killing humans considering there is nearly 8 billion of us walking around? If that is an unfair comparison because 'humans are more important than animals', would you be OK with this if they had killed dogs instead of pigs?
The pigs on the island had been domesticated by them, they gave them names and played with them, how is this any different to the show-runners putting a couple of puppies on the island?

But again, the constant key word is that they "could have." At least with a crocodile it's pretty much a sure thing that it will become hostile if you approach it. What they did wasn't really acceptable but I still think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

I also think this has been blown out of proportion, but I find this debate interesting and I'm not entirely sure which side of it I sit on. I have no personal anger towards the people who killed the pigs or the show-runners, but I'm wondering if there is a way to justify this without compromising other moral and ethical beliefs that society seems to have.

Breathing was a bad example, the whole point of it was the 'because we can' attitude. I don't necessarily think that is what one would call independence. A sane person anyways. No, 'It's human nature' would not but I'm darn sure pleading insanity would.

If having other options available is any reason not to kill something then I would be quite scared if someone didn't bring up the 'because we can' argument.

Comparing a man eating his neighbours cat is just a tad out of proportion pertaining to the real matter at hand and what we are discussing.

Is it?
You said it was human nature for them to kill and eat the pigs because they were starving, even though they had other options, and that it was OK.
Replace that with a starving man in rural England killing and eating his neighbours cat, and because he has other options available that's not OK?

It seems a bit hypocritical.

Is there not an inconsistency there?
If the population of a species is all that we must taken into account before slaughtering it what is the problem with killing humans considering there is nearly 8 billion of us walking around? If that is an unfair comparison because 'humans are more important than animals', would you be OK with this if they had killed dogs instead of pigs?
The pigs on the island had been domesticated by them, they gave them names and played with them, how is this any different to the show-runners putting a couple of puppies on the island?

I understand your point and to some extent I agree with you, but we incredibly different to animals. We have built a society, we have free will etc. If we are simply basing everything off of numbers though then yes there is an inconsistency. The population of the species isn't the only thing that should be taken into account.
It's hard to say how I would feel because it didn't actually happen, I would much rather no animals die but I know that's a pipe dream. To answer your question though; no I wouldn't be happy with it, being a dog owner myself and being quite fond of pets. Dogs are considered as pets though, they don't need to be domesticated however the pigs do. There is differentiation between the pigs and hypothetical dogs.

I also think this has been blown out of proportion, but I find this debate interesting and I'm not entirely sure which side of it I sit on. I have no personal anger towards the people who killed the pigs or the show-runners, but I'm wondering if there is a way to justify this without compromising other moral and ethical beliefs that society seems to have.

As do I find it interesting and through more discussion of it I've moved from being on one side to being more in the middle. I don't think there will be a correct justification for what happened because no matter what you say there will be at least one that continues to be upset or will challenge it. It's quite sad really.

Is it?
You said it was human nature for them to kill and eat the pigs because they were starving, even though they had other options, and that it was OK.
Replace that with a starving man in rural England killing and eating his neighbours cat, and because he has other options available that's not OK?

It seems a bit hypocritical.

The scenario is different, the physical and emotional stress that the people would have to be put under before receiving food would have to be high because if it wasn't the contestants would just get food thrown at them at every sign of trouble. Would you prefer to see them starving for a few days before they get the food as opposed to them making a quick decision? Whether that decision was the right one to make or not; I understand it. They must have been under a lot of pressure especially so considering they were a group.

'Starving people on island kill pigs so they can eat after many days of starvation'

'Starving man in rural England kills and eats neighbours cat because he felt like it'

I understand the point that you're trying to make, they could have just called for food and all would have been well but that defeats the purpose of the program. Many have said it before me but the show is about survival.

It's not a disregard for life.

The point is they have no access to food or anything, they need to survive on their own. They killed the animals to be able to eat food.

Sure, if they got that bad they would probably be given an emergency food kit. That's because this isn't a reality, these people aren't literally starving and have no access to anything..

For those saying that this is a reason for them to not kill the animals because they would be given emergency food... Ok then. You can never buy meat from a shop again, there is always tonnes of spare meat thrown away each day from supermarkets. You guys can live of the food thrown in the bins.

Most of the uproar about this is from special keyboard warriors acting as if they are some kind of superhero for joining in with the protest against this.
Most of the people that join along with these kind of things are such hypocrites that it just becomes sad.

At the end of the day, this pig was killed in a far more humane way than what most are subject to.
If you want to whine and all that, go complain to the hundreds of slaughter houses.

-Deano wrote It's not a disregard for life.

The point is they have no access to food or anything, they need to survive on their own. They killed the animals to be able to eat food.

Sure, if they got that bad they would probably be given an emergency food kit. That's because this isn't a reality, these people aren't literally starving and have no access to anything..

For those saying that this is a reason for them to not kill the animals because they would be given emergency food... Ok then. You can never buy meat from a shop again, there is always tonnes of spare meat thrown away each day from supermarkets. You guys can live of the food thrown in the bins.

Most of the uproar about this is from special keyboard warriors acting as if they are some kind of superhero for joining in with the protest against this.
Most of the people that join along with these kind of things are such hypocrites that it just becomes sad.

At the end of the day, this pig was killed in a far more humane way than what most are subject to.
If you want to whine and all that, go complain to the hundreds of slaughter houses.

I guess new arguments are too much to ask for.

They didn't need to kill the pigs, it's a survival entertainment show, not an informational documentary.
The fact that they aren't in danger of dying works in my favour, not yours. It just shows that it was unnecessary.
Eating food out of bins is a great way to get ill, so no.
It doesn't matter if other pigs are killed differently, if we're talking about minimizing suffering then these pigs shouldn't have been killed.

Insulting people rather than their arguments is fallacious and has no place in a debate.