The Forum › The Latest Videos FileCabi.net Forum (2007–2008)

Fish doesn't get Fresher than this

This topic was the comments for this video (the video itself was lost).

Salvaged from archive These posts were salvaged from the web archive of the original FileCabi forum (2007–2008). Usernames are as they were then and aren’t linked to today’s accounts.

FileCabi.netSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Fish doesn't get Fresher than this
SquiffySalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
I think I'm going to be sick.
sibSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Asians are some sick mofos.
RhomphaiaSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Asian people do some very, very strange shit with their food. A lot of it stems from things they were forced to do to prepare food when their civilizations started, but a lot of it just flat doesn't make sense (thousand year old egg? Who the fuck thought that one up?). This isn't the worst I have heard of either. An uncle of mine once served as a USAF military policeman in South Korea. His posting was right on the edge of the DMZ and on the other side of the DMZ border was a small village. Once a week the people of this village strung up a dog by its hind legs then set fire to it and let it burn just long enough to die before eating it. He had the opportunity to ask a few of them why they did it and they told him that the andrenaline in the meat made it taste better.
Vigil AnteSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
I just dont get it, totally unnecessary and a pretty demented way of thinking. If this was served to me the chief would have an awful fight on his hands.
UnregisteredSexOffenderSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Having a hard time finding the right words to say?? Look no further!! --> http://www.filecabi.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9459 :xyxthumbs:
OmigoshSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Disgusting.
vilecabi.netSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Quote: Originally Posted by sib View Post Asians are some sick mofos. Way to make a stupid generalization. You didn't even namea country -- you just said "Asians". What Asians? Chinese? Japanese? Korean? Thai? Vietnamese? Taiwanese (Chinese)? Mongolian? Burmese? Indians? Indonesians? Phillipino? Cambodian? Please reply XXXXXX Edited for personal attack, Cymru am byth
ealmSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
i dont see the big deal.. id eat it
SkInHoUnDSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Poor fucking fish....you'd be lynched if you did that in north america
JegarSalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
Ugh! Uuuuuuurggh! I've changed my attitude to asian people. Sick motherfuckers! The fishes have feelings too ya know!
PASalvaged from archive4 May 2007, 00:00
poor fish
travelmanSalvaged from archive
I eat biff, but at least i kill the cow first. That was just demented.
broggiSalvaged from archive
i hate peta, but i still wouldn't eat this.
sfoanSalvaged from archive
Thousand year old egg, isn't really a thousand year old egg, just cooked to look like one (boiled in soy sauce). Tawainese are not Chinese, unless they're the people that immigrated from China, but if you were really Tawainese, you'd call yourself Formosan anyways. This is some seriously messed up stuff right here.
MightyTinySalvaged from archive
That's just plain barbaric.
miteSalvaged from archive
Disgusting, sick very sick
K-LabSalvaged from archive
Yet another video that makes me hate and despise another country.After we nuke Iraq can we nuke these guys also.Sick bastards.
MaelstromccSalvaged from archive
GO GOOGLE VIDEO THE MOVIE EARTHLINGS AND IT WILL PROBABLY CHANGE YOU!
MaelstromccSalvaged from archive
Quote: Originally Posted by K-Lab View Post Yet another video that makes me hate and despise another country.After we nuke Iraq can we nuke these guys also.Sick bastards. china's nuclear program is more advanced than America's and they are supposedly raising 10 nuclear power plants a month.
soonsheeeine_99Salvaged from archive
Quote: Originally Posted by K-Lab View Post Yet another video that makes me hate and despise another country.After we nuke Iraq can we nuke these guys also.Sick bastards. you [REMOVED],you judge an entire nation by one chef? should i judge you by the monkey in the white house that said 'god' spoke to him and 'told' him to go to war with iraq? whats worse? a fish getting gutted alive or an iraqi kid getting his face caved in by a mortar? fucking backwards idiot,get an education you [REMOVED] [Removed Flames- P.A.]
Proto69Salvaged from archive
Quote: Originally Posted by vilecabi.net View Post Way to make a stupid generalization. You didn't even namea country -- you just said "Asians". What Asians? Chinese? Japanese? Korean? Thai? Vietnamese? Taiwanese (Chinese)? Mongolian? Burmese? Indians? Indonesians? Phillipino? Cambodian? Please reply asshat! u stole the words outa my mouth
themajorragerSalvaged from archive
i didnt get to see anything - AGAIN - cause the stupid video dissapears AGAIN halfway through... seriously WTF is up with this?
IguanaXSalvaged from archive
Quote: Originally Posted by K-Lab View Post Yet another video that makes me hate and despise another country.After we nuke Iraq can we nuke these guys also.Sick bastards. I so glad not everyone in this world thinks like you!!!!
ICE420Salvaged from archive
People that do this and people that eat this are just depraved , sub human ass holes.
MortelloSalvaged from archive
Quote: Originally Posted by MightyTiny View Post In science, there is no such thing as "just" a theory; the scientific term is VERY different from the everyday use of "theory", which can mean pretty much anything you happened to think up last night after a gallon of beer. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition of what "theory" means in science: "In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation." So a theory is something that already has confirmatory evidence; that is capable of explaining many disparate facts, and can make testable predictions on nature. Game theory, for example, is a fundamentally mathematical theory, and it can be used to predict what sorts of groups of agents, what sorts of inner rules for these agents, are plausible while allowing co-operation; and we can observe these strategies, predicted by the theory, in social animals including humans. The evolution of social structures, co-operation and morals is heavily founded on game theory. Further, morals existing as an inate instinct is the only thing isn't really in question, as I don't think there is another way to explain the agreement over fundamental moral judgements, or the consistent reactions to psychological tests designed to put test subjects into hypthetical situations that invoke moral feelings. These feelings (Anger at a perceived injustice, for example) can be demonstrated even in non-human social animals... as theory would lead us to expect. If there is a way to explain these things without a shared moral sense, then I've not come across it, nor can I imagine what it could be. I think that it is very difficult to come up with a definition that has no exceptions to it, however, a close estimation might be: Good: That which promotes the wellbeing of yourself or others, but not at the expense of suffering to others. Except when that suffering is freely agreed to by them who suffer, with the understanding that it is necessary on the path to a better wellbeing. Evil: That which is anti-social - that which disrupts things and structures (social or material) that are necessary for the wellbeing of others. Causing suffering against the will of those at the receiving end, and/or without the agreed upon (by those who suffer) purpose of improving their wellbeing on the long term. Further, these concepts should apply to all beings capable of suffering, and if we are not sure, we should err on the side of caution. Who am I to make these judgements? A memeber of the human species with the capacity to reflect on my actions and therefore responsibility over them - someone who is not offering these definitions as absolutes, but is willing to discuss and debate, to scrutinize and willing to be shown wrong, if I am wrong. I'm not offering a dogma to be put on a pedestal and worshiped. I base these concepts of good and evil on the shared moral sense, trying to avoid sentiments that are unique to a culture, and not universally in agreement with that shared moral sense. That shared moral sense, in turn, is instilled in me and other humans by our evolutionary history, and is every bit as much an adaptive feature as arms and legs, or the capacity for aquiring language is. Always. (except maybe when very, very drunk... ) Sorry to seem on and off, works takes alot on my schedule. Anyways, I never said theories are "just" and left it at that, it was in perspective that it is no more than what it is without the offering of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As to the rest you said, it seems more less a definition in your own perspective. But tell me this, if every perspective can be boiled down to either fact or opinion, tell me: Where does morals fall under? I see much of between the lines of what you said is offered based on the reflection of your own humanity but what of the two catagories would you put that under? Moreover, since war is based and justification either by god or "the right thing" how could war initiate without the bases of any moral justification? *edit* I like your based understanding of right and wrong, very agreeing to round base of humanity. Still, without seeing proof, I understand most people can never agree fully with each others perspective on things - that right there questions morals on the brink of humanity.
MightyTinySalvaged from archive
Quote: Originally Posted by Mortello View Post Sorry to seem on and off, works takes alot on my schedule. Anyways, I never said theories are "just" and left it at that, it was in perspective that it is no more than what it is without the offering of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As to the rest you said, it seems more less a definition in your own perspective. But tell me this, if every perspective can be boiled down to either fact or opinion, tell me: Where does morals fall under? I see much of between the lines of what you said is offered based on the reflection of your own humanity but what of the two catagories would you put that under? Moreover, since war is based and justification either by god or "the right thing" how could war initiate without the bases of any moral justification? *edit* I like your based understanding of right and wrong, very agreeing to round base of humanity. Still, without seeing proof, I understand most people can never agree fully with each others perspective on things - that right there questions morals on the brink of humanity. As for the first question, I see it falling squarely under "fact" rather than opinion. The basic morals are hard-wired in us by our evolutionary history, and our actual ethics can only - realistically and lastingly - vary within the bounds of those inate, shared moral intuitions. Thus, if you want to get people to do something that an outsider might judge immoral - such as commit genocide - you have to first deal with the problem of the shared moral sense that would, under normal circumstances, protest loudly: you have to devalue the victims of the genocide as something less than human - less than agents, and more like things; objects to be used or disposed of, without having to take their perspective into account. And/or you have to frame the objects of the genocide to be an overwhealing threat - to make it an "us or them" situation, in the minds of people. Moral intuitions can be overriden when survival is perceived to be at stake. Such aberations do not survive long though, nor are they judged favourably by history, in hindsight, simply because once the illusion of propaganda against the group fades, the moral intuitions again apply to those people too. People can of course invent additional ethical rules which don't have much going for them in the way of hard-wired intuition (many religious edicts come to mind, such as not working on the Sabbath), but these can, first, never conflict with the inate moral senses (or rather, rules that conflict with inate moral senses will be forgotten and discarded sooner rather than later), and secondly, they can be recognized easily as separate from the basic inate morals, from the fact that they are culture bound, and not shared universally. [edit:] An interesting note I forgot to mention - if there are laws or religious edicts that are held as infaliable, that nevertheless seem to outsiders to conflict with basic morality (such as commandments to kill atheist in both the Muslim holy texts and in the Bible), then in fundamentalists who believe these texts to be infalliably true, this can cause a NECESSITY to see a group of people as lesser beings. I.e. Atheists must be truly evil, horrible people, OR a mortal threat to the faithful, because otherwise it would be immoral to kill them. Quote: I never said theories are "just" and left it at that, it was in perspective that it is no more than what it is without the offering of proof beyond reasonable doubt... But isn't the universal agreement over proper solutions to constructed test scenarios involving moral dillemmas, proof beyond reasonable doubt that morality has a biological basis? Not to mention the fact that agreement and understanding of concepts such as "fairness" can be demonstrated even in non-human social animals? How else could the similar results of such tests across cultures, and across social groups, AND across species lines be explained? If there is an alternative explanation, I for one, cannot imagine what it could be. And to boost this tremendously powerful evidence for the inate nature of a moral sense, it agrees with mathematical models of the evolution of populations of social species - it is predicted by game theory. Considering that a similar moral sense (in simpler forms) has evolved in non human social animals, and that game theory shows exactly why one would expect it to evolve to be such as it is, I would further be willing to bet that if we were to find intelligent, extraterrestial life, that had evolved as a species primed to co-operate with others of it's kind (and I have serious doubts whether advanced intelligence could evolve in a non-social species), that species will be found to have a very similar sense of morality as we humans do. Just like eyes have elvolved independently, several times, and can be expected to evolve in any animals on any planet with abundant light (simply because eyes in such an environment are an overwhealming advantage), one can expect moral intuitions to evolve time and again, in an environment where co-operation is key to survival and success. As for the second question: Quote: Moreover, since war is based and justification either by god or "the right thing" how could war initiate without the bases of any moral justification? If I understand that question correctly, then I already answered it - by distorting people's views of the enemy to regard them as non-agents, thus lessening the power of moral intuitions to fight against our purposes for war. Further, people are not BOUND by their moral sense, though they are affected by it - the brain is remarkably good at excusing immoral behaviour for one's self (and the people one is allied with), when the interests of the group require breaching the rights of others. This is where the contemplation of ethics is important, I think - to recognize our own tendency to be lax with ourselves, and strict with others (especially when we don't personally know them), and to guide us towards a more fair minded approach - more in line with our unaffected, undistorted, undeceived moral intuitions.

Reply

Want your old post taken down? Get in touch.