> Never used the word "murdered" not sure where you got that from?
> one of the two main characters kills a dog and then feeds it to his girlfriend- the owner of the dog
The way you framed it implies murder. Yes, he kills the dog but it is entirely accidental, which is the relevant part that you conveniently omitted for the sake of your own argument.
> If you ignore the part of the script where Jez KILLS the girls dog and then EATS IT IN FRONT OF HER then yeah it is pretty innocent.
Again, you're intentionally framing it in a misrepresentative way. He only takes a bite out of a piece of the burnt corpse out of desperation because the group of people present are inquiring about what is in the bag. He says it's BBQ chicken and takes a bite to try to convince the others that's it completely innocuous. He's not doing it out of malice; he's doing it out of panic. And he's definitely not enjoying it either as he's visibly uncomfortable with doing it.
Anyone who watches the episode will clearly see that the way you're framing the whole episode is completely skewed and disingenuous.
Jez kills the dog. Jez then eats the dog. In front of the dogs owner. No amount of hand waving or interpretation changes that it is what happens in the episode. It is also very dark.
So what you're saying is that pertinent details that provide context for any given situation is "hand waving" and irrelevant? Seems like an obtuse approach to arriving at a conclusion.
The pertinent details are that he eats a person's pet in front of the pets owner! His motivations don't matter! His motivations do not absolve him from his actions. No Seinfeld character comes close to this level of sociopathy and I challenge you to come up with an example where it does.
And just for the record I like peep show, and I think the holiday episode is funny if a bit disturbing.
> one of the two main characters kills a dog and then feeds it to his girlfriend- the owner of the dog
The way you framed it implies murder. Yes, he kills the dog but it is entirely accidental, which is the relevant part that you conveniently omitted for the sake of your own argument.
> If you ignore the part of the script where Jez KILLS the girls dog and then EATS IT IN FRONT OF HER then yeah it is pretty innocent.
Again, you're intentionally framing it in a misrepresentative way. He only takes a bite out of a piece of the burnt corpse out of desperation because the group of people present are inquiring about what is in the bag. He says it's BBQ chicken and takes a bite to try to convince the others that's it completely innocuous. He's not doing it out of malice; he's doing it out of panic. And he's definitely not enjoying it either as he's visibly uncomfortable with doing it.
Anyone who watches the episode will clearly see that the way you're framing the whole episode is completely skewed and disingenuous.
> this argument is pointless
Finally something we can agree on.
EDIT: The scene where the dog is accidentally killed: https://youtu.be/E6WYvAWIowU?t=135 The scene where Jez takes a bite: https://youtu.be/cKaqzvzlgKU?t=50