Killing all the lions and tigers....

[William White]

My instinct is to distrust anybody that can either be cruel to an animal, or think it is okay to be cruel to an animal.Only scumbags can treat an animal badly.

Only scumbags will travel around the world to kill an animal for fun.

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

 

[micromass]

My instinct is to distrust anybody that can either be cruel to an animal, or think it is okay to be cruel to an animal.Only scumbags can treat an animal badly.

Only scumbags will travel around the world to kill an animal for fun.

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

Do you eat meat? Do you think people eating meat are immoral?

 

[William White]

Do you eat meat? Do you think people eating meat are immoral?

I do not eat meat.BUT
I do not have a problem with humans killing animals (humanely) for food.

This could be farmed animals or animals that are numerous so that their populations are sustainable.

I have a problem with people traveling around the world to kill an animal for fun. This lion could have taken up to 40 hours to die.

People that enjoy watching a creature suffer are below contempt.
Personal view, but people that can watch an animal suffer do not have a problem with people suffering either.

 

[russ_watters]

Wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood

That is a movement to recognize something that is NOT currently recognized.

We give person hood to corporations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Because corporations are (groups of) people!

Your distinction between what entities deserves rights and those that do not is just as artificial as any other.

Indeed it is. More importantly, it is the fact of what both the law and the prevailing personal morality is in the vast majority of the world -- and even for people who are internally conflicted and just don't recognize it.

Poaching...

Has he been charged with this crime? What is the maximum punishment for poaching in zimbabwae?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think most people believe that the way someone treats animals is indicative of the way they treat (or would treat if allowed) people.

 

[William White]

That is a movement to recognize something that is NOT currently recognized.

Its recognized in some countries.

Because corporations are (groups of) people!

Yes, rights can be extended to an entity that is a group of people. My town is a group of people, but it does not have the rights of a person.

Coroporations can take actions that kill people. Suddenly the group of people are not there, it was the action of the corporation. Who gets the executioners chair then?

 

[russ_watters]

So if I find a cat or any other animal and I torture it for weeks in the most painful way possible, that would be ok for you?

No, it would not.

 

[William White]

I think most people believe that the way someone treats animals is indicative of the way they treat (or would treat if allowed) people.

I think most people would be right.

Right thinking people don't kill and torture animals for fun.

 

[Lisa!]

Certainly: another unspoken assumption the others are using is that those disabled people have done nothing wrong. The same assumption is being applied to the lion. There is no reason for me to restate those assumptions because I agree with them: the relevant difference here is only what I said: the people are people. The lion is not.

Perhaps someone is misunderstanding that someone else is arguing that lions SHOULD be killed BECAUSE they have no value. I am not/would not make that argument: only that they CAN be killed because they have no (insufficient) value.

In case anyone might think it matters, I ate part of a cow about an hour ago. I'm not expecting to be arrested for murder.

I always thought that you're not against death penalty or war!

 

[William White]

No, it would not.

why?

 

[micromass]

No, it would not.

Why not? You said that morality does not apply to animals, so what's your reason for not liking this?

 

[William White]

More importantly, it is the fact of what both the law and the prevailing personal morality is in the vast majority of the world -- and even for people who are internally conflicted and just don't recognize it.

You are talking about respecting the law.
Animals in the USA obviously do not have personhood, but there are animal rights laws. There are laws as to how, where and when you can kill an animal

The dentist has a criminal record for killing a bear in his own country.

He traveled to another country and (allegedly) broke their laws.

He has no respect for the law, nor the rights of the animals that the law is protecting.

The USA should send him to Zimbabwe to answer the questions of the Zimbabwe police.

 

[russ_watters]

I always thought that you're not against death penalty or war!

I'm not.

 

[William White]

I'm not.

So there are conditions when it is okay to revoke the human right to life?

(executions in particular)

These human rights you go on about are on very shaky foundations!

In the grand scheme of things, is your life of more value than a lion's?

 

[russ_watters]

Why not? You said that morality does not apply to animals, so what's your reason for not liking this?

It gives me emotional pain to see animals suffer. I'm not a psychologist, but that is probably due to anthropomorphism.

 

[russ_watters]

So there are conditions when it is okay to revoke the human right to life?

(executions in particular)

Correct.

These human rights you go on about are on very shaky foundations!

I disagree, but in either case, you are now arguing against your point.

 

[jobyts]

Why not? You said that morality does not apply to animals, so what's your reason for not liking this?

Humans have evolved to have secondary pain. Brain scans shows that it is the same part of the brain gets stimulated when we have primary pain or secondary pain. We learned to ignore the secondary pain, if the outcome gives us an evolutionary/sociological advantage.

Killing an animal for food/survival have evolutionary advantage over secondary pain. Torturing an animal has no evolutionary/sociological advantage. So secondary pain gets precedence.

 

[William White]

Correct.

So you don't believe in human rights then?

If a right can be granted and removed (often wrongly) on the whim of a greater power, what sort of right is it?

 

[micromass]

Humans have evolved to have secondary pain. Brain scans shows that it is the same part of the brain gets stimulated when we have primary pain or secondary pain. We learned to ignore the secondary pain, if the outcome gives us an evolutionary/sociological advantage.

Killing an animal for food/survival have evolutionary advantage over secondary pain. Torturing an animal has no evolutionary/sociological advantage. So secondary pain gets precedence.

Nevertheless, humans hunt for fun and have always hunted for fun.
And torturing animals was not always as unacceptable as it is now.

 

[William White]

yes
humans hunt other humans for fun (or money - how much was a redskin?), and torture other humans too.

they tend to be the same type that torture animals

http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/07/54db9c3d6dc2a_-_redskins1-gtp0as.png

Its without doubt that the people undertaking this horrendous crime took enjoyment from it. Colonial powers used the justification that natives (be it Indians, Australian Aboriginees etc) were subhuman, nearer to animals.

As our conciousness awakens, more and more people are granted rights, and more and more animals are. Its the sign of maturity as a society.

 

[russ_watters]

So you don't believe in human rights then?

If a right can be granted and removed (often wrongly) on the whim of a greater power, what sort of right is it?

That's ridiculous. I'm on a cell phone, so I'm not inclined to explain the entire concept of human right to you(and not relevant anyway), but again, you are arguing against your own point now.

 

[micromass]

It gives me emotional pain to see animals suffer. I'm not a psychologist, but that is probably due to anthropomorphism.

Why would "it pains me to see animals suffer" not be a good basis for morality? Isn't that what morality comes from?

 

[William White]

How am I arguing against my point.

You say that human rights exist because people are people (ie they are special and separate from animals);
but you are happy for human rights to be extinguished, removed, revoked on a whim

It IS a whim.

If the most important human right is the right to life, then you cannot defend your position on human rights if you KNOW there are situations where you KNOW innocents will be killed needlessly. Your country wrongly executes its citizens. There is no justification whatsoever in this, IF you believe that human rights should be honoured.
You are on very shaky, contradictory grounds.
You accept human rights, or not.

You seem to like them, but only when it is convenient.

Same goes for animal rights.

 

[jobyts]

yes
humans hunt other humans for fun (or money - how much was a redskin?), and torture other humans too.

they tend to be the same type that torture animals

Correct. And this has scientific backing too. I remember reading a website that shows pictures of brain scans when shown pictures of other humans and animals tortured, to measure the secondary pain among kids. Normal kids shows more brain stimulation on seeing the torturing pictures. Violent/troubled kids had less brain stimulation from a secondary pain. The effect of nature and nurture is not well known on the level brain stimulation.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think most people believe that the way someone treats animals is indicative of the way they treat (or would treat if allowed) people.

Actually, I don't think "most" people realize this.
I think it's something that old people pick up on.

I would expand, but its a long story. It involves Moonbear. Maybe another day.

 

[William White]

hey, I'm not "old"!

 

[jobyts]

BTW, where is Evo? Is everything ok with you? There is a discussion on animals and Evo is not talking.

 

[russ_watters]

Why would "it pains me to see animals suffer" not be a good basis for morality? Isn't that what morality comes from?

Oy. I don't know why we keep going down this rabbit hole. We are moving further and further away from the issue of the thread. Perhaps you guys are hoping to find a contradiction in my acceptance of morality for humans. I assure you, you will not, but even if you did, you would only prove that humans shouldn't be protected either! I'm not inclined to indulge this tangent much further, but briefly:

There are lots of sources for morality. The most common I can think of off the top of my head are:
1. Genetics/evolution
2. Religion
3. Logic
4. Emotion
5. Law
6. Negotiation

 

[micromass]

Oy. I don't know why we keep going down this rabbit hole.

Face it, we're all just bored.

There are lots of sources for morality. The most common I can think of off the top of my head are:
1. Genetics/evolution
2. Religion
3. Logic
4. Emotion
5. Law
6. Negotiation

OK, and which one of those implies that morality should not apply to animals?
Also, I personally only accept 1, 3 and 4 as bases of my personal morality.

 

[russ_watters]

How am I arguing against my point.

Successfully arguing that humans should not have rights will not grant rights to animals.

You say that human rights exist because people are people (ie they are special and separate from animals);
but you are happy for human rights to be extinguished, removed, revoked on a whim

Nonsense.

If the most important human right is the right to life, then you cannot defend your position on human rights if you KNOW there are situations where you KNOW innocents will be killed needlessly.

What?! I would never support the needless killing of humans!

Your country wrongly executes its citizens. There is no justification whatsoever in this, IF you believe that human rights should be honoured.

So says your morality. Not mine.

 

[russ_watters]

OK, and which one of those implies that morality should not apply to animals?
Also, I personally only accept 1, 3 and 4 as bases of my personal morality.

"Shouldn not" is not up for debate: it is up to you. What I am stating here are the facts of what the current generally accepted moral code IS.

 

[micromass]

What?! I would never support the needless killing of humans!

Then it seems difficult to be a proponent of the death penalty if you know that many people are convicted wrongfully.

 

[Enigman]

Disabled people are people.

So? Lions are lions. If you are looking for another tautology. The OP asks to disregard morality completely. Killing the disabled would save resources on health care and space. What purpose does killing lions serve?
And why lions anyway? Why not house cats? US spent $ 55.7 billion on pets. Some pets like dogs are useful, sure, but if we kill all cats then households could use the money saved for something more useful rather than spending it on a species that seem to be ecological disasters waiting to happen.

Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[8] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within a specific region and may have contributed to extinction of isolated island populations.[9] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely responsible, for the extinction of 33 species of birds and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reestablishment in otherwise suitable locations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

And as for Apex predators being unimportant -

Primary or apex predators can actually benefit prey populations by suppressing smaller predators, and failure to consider this mechanism has triggered collapses of entire ecosystems.

Cascading negative effects of surging mesopredator populations have been documented for birds, sea turtles, lizards, rodents, marsupials, rabbits, fish, scallops, insects and ungulates.

The economic cost of controlling mesopredators may be very high, and sometimes could be accomplished more effectively at less cost by returning apex predators to the ecosystem.

Human intervention cannot easily replace the role of apex predators, in part because the constant fear of predation alters not only populations but behavior of mesopredators.

Large predators are usually carnivores, but mesopredators are often omnivores and can cause significant plant and crop damage.

The effects of exploding mesopredator populations can be found in oceans, rivers, forests and grasslands around the world.

Reversing and preventing mesopredator release is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive as the world's top predators continue to edge toward obliteration.

"These problems resist simple solutions," Ripple said. "I've read that when Gen. George Armstrong Custer came into the Black Hills in 1874, he noticed a scarcity of coyotes and the abundance of wolves. Now the wolves are gone in many places and coyotes are killing thousands of sheep all over the West."

"We are just barely beginning to appreciate the impact of losing our top predators," he said.

http://www.livescience.com/9716-loss-top-predators-causing-ecosystems-collapse.html

Frankly, this thread is getting a bit on my nerves, I am out. Apparently not.

 

[micromass]

"Shouldn not" is not up for debate: it is up to you. What I am stating here are the facts of what the current generally accepted moral code IS.

Do you have a link to that currently accepted moral code? Is it just your moral code? Because the moral codes of most people I know do involve animals in some way or another.

 

[William White]

What?! I would never support the needless killing of humans!

you support the death penalty

1) you support people (correctly convicted of, say , murder) being executed. How is this killing NEEDED
2) you accept that innocent people have been, and will continue to be, executed, whilst the real killer goes free. How is the killing NEEDED