http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8633179.stm

US Court overturns ban on 'crush videos'. I first heard about this genre about two years ago and have yet to find any evidence of them actually existing.

Waiting on that...

whether real or not, they are dreadful.
how this type of 'freedom of expression' should do any good, escapes my understanding.

but.... did you just open another can of worms?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/01/ameliagentleman.philipwillan

("tracking" snuff movies. one would rather forget \!! that such exists.)

Being a philosopher means having a little Cartesian doubt. I'm not asking if there are hundreds of articles about something controversial that could exist. Knowing very well the way media hype things up, such as in the article you link,

"They say some may have specifically requested films of killings."

Pigs "may" fly too, that doesn't mean it happened. Or this line, it means nothing,

"...very, very nasty stuff involving sadistic abuse...."

Meaning what?

Since starting this thread, I have been able to find photographic and video evidence that convinces me that animal crush does exist -- beyond the hundreds of hyped articles. Eg.,


If I've seen Kuznetsov's video with my own eyes I can decide for myself, until then, no comment.

The issue of free-speech... or micro/macro (vore) size fetishism common to the pedophilic-snuff movies and animal crush videos may be the "can of worms" you mention? Or the similarity between crush videos and legal animal cruelty: slaughter, experiments? Or the way this undermines consent doctrine? The real can of worms is that some of the best moral-logical minds in the World, the Supreme Court judges can't find a common rule for (their/our) morals! It is not possible to make an invincible Deep Blue? The gravity of death realizes fetish that only treats sex as symbol: sex-death, that's a can of worms too.

we are getting to the hard facts behind the screens:

(re-)"production" cycles - can mankind "manage" them, as in being custodians of life?

i keep it simple!

\!!

Yes, I see there is an issue here where Free Speech which is a good thing, and anti-animal cruelty which is a good thing are being pitted against eachother. The degree to which these actually clash might be less than led to believe? "United States v. Stevens" for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzgOS8dbF64

Indepth docu on the subject of crush video and the law,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeoAjxDR-g

"215 VIEWS"... not expecting much "serious" discussion on this. (The view counters on YouTube etc are so demoralizing. Very few people are educating themselves, and I don't just mean this obscure issue, it's rare to find a lecture with more than a few thousand views.)

do you still believe it's a matter of education, when reality as supply and demand covers (up for) being and not being at the same time, going for an end called indifference?

Yes, I do think there is a major access to information problem. To use coberst-speak: my reading of history suggests to me that two-hundred years ago average city-folk were better educated and better socially organized than they are today. People are dumber today than in 1850, and all the old societies, clubs, etc are dead.

one could interpret coberst-speak differently:

a major access to information problem....

certainly information is available. accessibility has changed in its qualitative faculties: it's knowledge as acquired from familiar and trusted sources that the individual is starved of while required to process an overwhelming flood of information and impressions and expected to function like a precision clockwork.

i would rather call that a digestion problem, still different in our respective national contexts.

"human ressources" and "live stock" are cost factors, and time is money. see a need for communication or is perception cluttered to pinpoint the problem right there?

What's odd though about being a "philosopher" and "having some cartesian doubt" is the very name philosopher entitles revolution, and revolution entitles philosophers having some dignity. I suspect that philosophers as heros of the light is a mistaken presumpsion made by many- albeit how one considers this mistake, is not my problem. Just saying wahoo, lighten up pal. You're a frantic poster- and I love all your posts. But remember ..... When someone says "are crush videos real" what it really means!

I wonder if someone could litterally sit down and discuss how they are not real whilist at the same time being mistaken? Isn't that the nature of reality to pose and prose into the depths of the hidden meaning and the surface thereof? Isn't one meant to question if "crush videos are real" imply "societial hangouts are real and existent"?

If the answer is no- I would pose a question to the nature of cartesian doubt before any of that occurs- but at that point in time I would begin to question the nature or the authority thereof - of if somoene is even entitled ethically or morally to have these "hangouts" and social invitations permitted - in any way at all- for if the nature of reality is to remain skeptical about any given societial conversations or discussions then I would truly permit one to re- think ones hypothesis about what a crush video is - at least before I comment in on that particular "given".

That is an absurd predicament to question something that does not in the beginning have a firm footing. ABSRUD I say ABSURD.

In the beginning- there was god- and gods light shine for infintely reasonable purposes, that being the creation of the universe,- this is actually able to be understood in terms of which people would perhaps apply- as if the earth was void and without form- it seems to imply some assersion- that assersion being that if somoene applied it then there is some (existence) which (exists here)- GO BACK TO THE TIME OF THE PARAMIDS. The people had designated a ruler- a ruler and a class of people- slaves were once thought common- and the queen of the land at one time had needles- at that time she was after the pharoh whom failed IMHO to achieve his given perspective to arrive at any rule for his land was 'his' land- and at no time previous did they decide upon rules to a society regulated by the rules which they knew-

If this is a possibility and I would denote firstly to the conttrary any slipping of the previous remarks into rubble- it'd seem to imply that there was or is a trace of "light" thereein a reason for there being "societial hangouts" without refrence to there being any social hangouts.

Long ago they survived in mind with the right that the blue which the dinosaurs contained died out likely because they were beginnign to be too blue for survival reasons that they died ou this does not suggest that dying out is condemned to dying for evolutionary reasons as it suggests nothing in its own right.

If creatures had light- does it not suggest that they either 1)still do or 2) that a king could have built an empire?

It does suggest that, and by right of all that's holy it would not suggest that. Light is always only light and everyone has the same dignity of that light.

To state or question that there is not light is a faulty presumpsion.

Creatures long ago survived and the blue which they were from my perspective was too blue to keep

That doesn't imply that the color of blue is an absolutist- as in terms of evolutionary purposes- one must without questioning further admit that the blue which would evolve is no color of blue- as the blue usually exists on the chest- whilist the color of the top of a persons head is thought to be similar- but different and - finally distinct.

such does have consequences very inconsistent with claims to divinity made otherwise and elsewhere.

tell-tale. and cleverness is a lousy substitute for wisdom. \!!

Not really. The world is similar to one of which in the hemits live according to some. Prophets and wisdoms are many and far spread. I wonder what makes a "world" a "world" anyways.... Some people are curious.

what does 'not really' mean? somehow only?

even if crush vids (or snuff stuff) were only "animated" the question must be permissible:
what is their purpose and intent? cui bono?

maybe your inquiring mind should dive a little deeper into all manner of projections, including the "astral" ones.

advice, of course, only to legislated age-groups. LOL

I have unfortunately seen crush images and videos and can attest to their being very real.