Talk:Eating live animals

Warning on video?

@Epipelagic: Hi Epi, I agree with you re-introducing the video, but do you think the caption should warn readers it is rather shocking?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would a squeamish person read this article, let alone click to see what are obviously going to be graphic images, unless they wanted or intended to be shocked? I am deeply shocked by all sorts of human behaviours on Wikipedia, yet no one puts up warning signs to protect me. Not that I want to be protected :) --Epipelagic (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Point taken - readers would not be here and follow the link if they were of the "sensitive" kind. I have placed warnings on videos in the past, but perhaps this was to prevent the surprise element. Still a pretty gruesome video though.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Animal abuse.

In re the lede:

"Eating live animals is the practice of humans eating animals that are still alive. It is a traditional practice in many East Asian food cultures. Animals may also be eaten alive for shock value. Eating live animals, or parts of live animals, may be unlawful in certain jurisdictions under animal cruelty laws. Religious prohibitions on the eating of live animals by humans are also present in various world religions."

Can we all agree that the lede should be clear, that this is a form of ritualized animal abuse? This article reads as if it is trying to normalize it in fear of offending the few thousand weirdos out there who do this. I don't care if it is some ancient tradition of your village; it's horrible. You're torturing something for no reason other than "Well my grand pappy used to do it, so it's okay."

This is, without doubt, animal abuse. It is cruel and inflicts extreme suffering on the creature. And it IS illegal in EVERY country with animal cruelty laws, not 'may be unlawful in certain jurisdictions'. And every major religion on Earth considers it a most grievous sin, not just 'religious prohibitions' in 'various world religions'.

This is an example of an attempt to appear neutral coming off as an attempt to promote something. I'm not saying we should declare it a sin, I'm an atheist so that'd be weird. But I'm definitely saying we can all unifyingly agree that it is a matter of fact this is animal abuse, and causes extreme suffering for no reason other than 'tradition'. 2001:8003:2953:1900:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! Gaggedusa (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

An article like this is meant to describe a topic, not endorse or speak out against it. And "well I personally think it's wrong" isn't enough of a rrason to change the article's wording without sources to back it up. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is encyclopedia whose work is to state facts and not advocate. If you feel that any line particularly violates this, you may state a simple reason without stating you opinions of the subject, and may have a correction suggested. Wikipedia does not decide if eating animals alive is cruelty or not, it just states what different sources think it is. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)