Post: #151

Just so we're all clear:

(07-30-2015 01:41 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 07:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 05:32 PM)Troll King Wrote:  One thing he said gave me a real WTF moment. He said something along the lines of, "You know you live in a morally degenerate society when it is illegal to destroy Bald Eagle eggs but we allow abortions by the hundreds of thousands per year."

But the difference is humans aren't an endangered species. We've gone from 1 billion to 7 billion in just over 100 years and still growing. If there were 7 billion bald eagles you wouldn't hear things like that. There are more chickens on the planet than humans. Nobody cares about destroying their eggs, because chickens aren't under threat of extinction. That's the difference. If there was just a handful of humans on the planet and falling, I'm sure abortion would be banned.

Perhaps my viewpoint is irrational, but I for one cannot really understand the logic behind calculations like this. I consider human life to be inherently more valuable than that of the Eagle, and I give its preservation more concern than I would assign to that of an Eagle regardless of the number of humans on Earth.

The human is a sentient being and a member of my species. The Eagle is a bird. I like the Eagle, but I cannot understand how it is that one can justify privileging the life of the unborn Eagle over that of their unborn fellow man.

The fact that our society has no problem making such a justification just illustrates more clearly to me the lack of value human life really maintains here. Many of the people making these justifications are the same people pushing for all of the progressive ideologies that have gained ground on the basis of compassion for other people and human rights. The fact that their selective outrage simultaneously supports the privileging of animal life over that of their fellow man says a lot.

To offer a different perspective - it's not about the life of an individual eagle, so much as the utility humans derive from the continued existence of eagles. I don't think anyone really believes human life is infinitely valuable, however often they might make the claim. Let's take cars, for example. Cars provide a utility to humans that we have decided outweighs the loss of human life they cause. If we thought human life was infinitely valuable, cars would have been banned, but we're willing to write off 1.2 million human lives each year because we like cars.

Likewise, even if you don't consider animal life to have any intrinsic moral relevance, there is an argument to be made for preserving endangered species to the point of killing poachers, because a lot of people enjoy the biodiversity this world has to offer. This world is a profoundly beautiful and interesting place, and animals like tigers and bald eagles are some of the most charismatic examples of what it can produce. Most people would be happy to write off a few lives every year if it ensures their grandchildren get to live in a world with tigers and eagles.

In general, humans strongly value a small benefit to a large group over a large cost to a small number of people; you can complain about it, and call this particular case an example of the "moral degeneracy" of humans being over-fond of animals, but you all tacitly accept the same decisions every day regarding completely inanimate objects like cars and aeroplanes, so maybe it's just that when animals are involved it feels more like the weighing of one life vs. another. I mean, if there was only one copy in existence of the complete works of Shakespeare, would anybody really be surprised that there's guards posted next to it to shoot the first guy they see lighting a match?

In regards to hunting, however, as lame as canned hunts are they're incredibly beneficial to preserving the population of endangered animals, so it's funny how much hate they get from SJW-types. I mean, how much noise have they made about anything else that's happened in Zimbabwe? I guess the first-world metric for morality is "If I don't have to look at it, it doesn't matter."

Given Palmer reeeaaally wasn't supposed to kill that particular lion, a hefty fine would be understandable, but the way these people are behaving is disgusting. If you really get so worked up by a dead lion that you feel the need to drive out to a guy's house and stand there with a billboard for hours, stick signs to his doors etc., then maybe, just maybe, you need to seek a professional therapist. I mean, it's as if these people only feel a sense of belonging and community when the media sends them a new target to direct their hatred towards. And I like lions.

Post: #152

(07-31-2015 06:50 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Back to the main point of this thread:

Kimmel is a bitch for crying about this lion.

True dat.

Furthermore, I don't recall Kimmel ever crying about all the humans killed in Africa.

Post: #153

BREAKING NEWS: Cecil the lion's brother Jericho shot dead by poachers in Zimbabwean park

There really aren't many details other than Jericho was protecting Cecil's cubs, now no one knows what will happen to them. Apparently, the new alpha will kill the previous one's cubs and mate with all of the females. Maybe, since Cecil was killed by a dentist instead of losing an internal power struggle, there wasn't the urgency to establish a new pride.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-park.html

Post: #154

(08-01-2015 01:03 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 06:50 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Back to the main point of this thread:

Kimmel is a bitch for crying about this lion.

True dat.

Furthermore, I don't recall Kimmel ever crying about all the humans killed in Africa.

"One [lion] death is a tragedy; one million [human deaths] is a statistic."

Post: #155

Some idiots now are petitioning for this dentist to be extradited to Zimbabwe now:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/07/31/...cmp=hplnws

Sure this dentist is a jerk for doing what he did, but sending him to Zimbabwe, one of the most corrupt and lawless places on the planet (and a true Marxist/Leninist system of government to boot) to "face justice" is ridiculous.

The knee-jerk reactions of some of these armchair SJW generals is as pathetic as it is alarming.

Post: #156

(08-01-2015 01:57 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  BREAKING NEWS: Cecil the lion's brother Jericho shot dead by poachers in Zimbabwean park

There really aren't many details other than Jericho was protecting Cecil's cubs, now no one knows what will happen to them. Apparently, the new alpha will kill the previous one's cubs and mate with all of the females. Maybe, since Cecil was killed by a dentist instead of losing an internal power struggle, there wasn't the urgency to establish a new pride.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-park.html

Ain't that a bitch. It's hard out here for us lions.

Post: #157

(08-01-2015 01:57 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  BREAKING NEWS: Cecil the lion's brother Jericho shot dead by poachers in Zimbabwean park

There really aren't many details other than Jericho was protecting Cecil's cubs, now no one knows what will happen to them. Apparently, the new alpha will kill the previous one's cubs and mate with all of the females. Maybe, since Cecil was killed by a dentist instead of losing an internal power struggle, there wasn't the urgency to establish a new pride.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-park.html

The reason the other male lions kill the cubs, as I understand it, is that the females won't go into heat if they are nursing. When they stop nursing, they go into heat. So the male lions know that the way to fuck more lionesses is to get them to stop nursing. Since Lions haven't quite figured out how to make lion baby formula, that means killing the little fuckers. You see, male Lions, like male Humans, basically just want to FUCK.

It's interesting - the immediate mechanism is that the Lion's horniness causes them to kill the cubs, so the females will come into heat. But the larger agenda of evolution is that only the best gene's should survive - and if the male lion was killed by another male, clearly his gene's weren't the best. All this is under the surface, the male lion is only aware that his balls are blue and he needs to fuck. Nature is insidious, and amazing.

Post: #158

Here's what sport hunting's like in comparison. You have to admire the guy's skill.

Quite impressive.

They're invasive wild hogs.

Post: #159

The threats going out to this dentist on social media are getting quite disturbing. I doubt anything will come of it but all the same, people forget Cecil the Lion probably killed plenty of animals on his own while he lived.

Post: #160

@Valhalla

cue in the rage comments

Suburban white kid on his Iphone ,"You can't just shoot something and leave it lying there, that's wasteful."

Guy who plays CoD but never shot anything ,"God what a faggot real hunters use a bow."

Girl who's never been in a flyover state ,"He only uses a gun because he has a small dick."

19 year old sjw faggot who identifies with Bambi ,"I hope you those pigs eat you you fucking nazi."

Post: #161

(08-01-2015 07:06 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  @Valhalla

cue in the rage comments

Suburban white kid on his Iphone ,"You can't just shoot something and leave it lying there, that's wasteful."

Guy who plays CoD but never shot anything ,"God what a faggot real hunters use a bow."

Girl who's never been in a flyover state ,"He only uses a gun because he has a small dick."

19 year old sjw faggot who identifies with Bambi ,"I hope you those pigs eat you you fucking nazi."

meanwhile they get giddy when their dad cooks them steak. Because ya know, the stuff from grocery store comes from magic.

Post: #162

Shit I forgot that one

hipster who forgot where bacon comes from ,"Wow. Just wow. What a scumbag. This is why we need to ban guns, America."

Post: #163

sorry, duped on another post above

Post: #164

(08-01-2015 12:59 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  Just so we're all clear:

(07-30-2015 01:41 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 07:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 05:32 PM)Troll King Wrote:  One thing he said gave me a real WTF moment. He said something along the lines of, "You know you live in a morally degenerate society when it is illegal to destroy Bald Eagle eggs but we allow abortions by the hundreds of thousands per year."

But the difference is humans aren't an endangered species. We've gone from 1 billion to 7 billion in just over 100 years and still growing. If there were 7 billion bald eagles you wouldn't hear things like that. There are more chickens on the planet than humans. Nobody cares about destroying their eggs, because chickens aren't under threat of extinction. That's the difference. If there was just a handful of humans on the planet and falling, I'm sure abortion would be banned.

Perhaps my viewpoint is irrational, but I for one cannot really understand the logic behind calculations like this. I consider human life to be inherently more valuable than that of the Eagle, and I give its preservation more concern than I would assign to that of an Eagle regardless of the number of humans on Earth.

The human is a sentient being and a member of my species. The Eagle is a bird. I like the Eagle, but I cannot understand how it is that one can justify privileging the life of the unborn Eagle over that of their unborn fellow man.

The fact that our society has no problem making such a justification just illustrates more clearly to me the lack of value human life really maintains here. Many of the people making these justifications are the same people pushing for all of the progressive ideologies that have gained ground on the basis of compassion for other people and human rights. The fact that their selective outrage simultaneously supports the privileging of animal life over that of their fellow man says a lot.

To offer a different perspective - it's not about the life of an individual eagle, so much as the utility humans derive from the continued existence of eagles. I don't think anyone really believes human life is infinitely valuable, however often they might make the claim. Let's take cars, for example. Cars provide a utility to humans that we have decided outweighs the loss of human life they cause. If we thought human life was infinitely valuable, cars would have been banned, but we're willing to write off 1.2 million human lives each year because we like cars.

Likewise, even if you don't consider animal life to have any intrinsic moral relevance, there is an argument to be made for preserving endangered species to the point of killing poachers, because a lot of people enjoy the biodiversity this world has to offer. This world is a profoundly beautiful and interesting place, and animals like tigers and bald eagles are some of the most charismatic examples of what it can produce. Most people would be happy to write off a few lives every year if it ensures their grandchildren get to live in a world with tigers and eagles.

In general, humans strongly value a small benefit to a large group over a large cost to a small number of people; you can complain about it, and call this particular case an example of the "moral degeneracy" of humans being over-fond of animals, but you all tacitly accept the same decisions every day regarding completely inanimate objects like cars and aeroplanes, so maybe it's just that when animals are involved it feels more like the weighing of one life vs. another. I mean, if there was only one copy in existence of the complete works of Shakespeare, would anybody really be surprised that there's guards posted next to it to shoot the first guy they see lighting a match?

In regards to hunting, however, as lame as canned hunts are they're incredibly beneficial to preserving the population of endangered animals, so it's funny how much hate they get from SJW-types. I mean, how much noise have they made about anything else that's happened in Zimbabwe? I guess the first-world metric for morality is "If I don't have to look at it, it doesn't matter."

Given Palmer reeeaaally wasn't supposed to kill that particular lion, a hefty fine would be understandable, but the way these people are behaving is disgusting. If you really get so worked up by a dead lion that you feel the need to drive out to a guy's house and stand there with a billboard for hours, stick signs to his doors etc., then maybe, just maybe, you need to seek a professional therapist. I mean, it's as if these people only feel a sense of belonging and community when the media sends them a new target to direct their hatred towards. And I like lions.

I'm gonna have to say your logic is a little flawed on this one bro. First of all the airplane/car example is the complete opposite, without cars/airplanes a lot more people would die. Secondly, the eagle benefitting our future generations example, and cars killing a few people to serve the majority is wrong. Abortion directly kills, if you get an abortion, you end a life, period. If you produce a car, you do not end a life. It's a secondary cause and effect. You can't compare the two. There is no moral wrongdoing in such a thing.

Post: #165

Not sure if everything said about the dentist is true, or everything about Mugabe but he is awful.

Post: #166

To be fair, Mugarbage has had some media coverage, but it's not technically 'news' anymore. Zimbabwe and Mugabe are 'olds'. The Left successfully conquered it, it's now a rotten shithole of a country, and on it goes.

Post: #167

One of the reasons Mugabe isn't as directly opposed as he should be is because many western nations facilitated his ascent to power in the 70's when he looked like the guy to put Rhodesia right.

As with Putin he's been slapped around a lot with economic warfare however to the point that the Zimbabwe currency has the value of Monopoly money.

Post: #168

Delete, going offtopic

Post: #169

(08-02-2015 12:03 AM)BillyTalented Wrote:  I'm gonna have to say your logic is a little flawed on this one bro. First of all the airplane/car example is the complete opposite, without cars/airplanes a lot more people would die. Secondly, the eagle benefitting our future generations example, and cars killing a few people to serve the majority is wrong. Abortion directly kills, if you get an abortion, you end a life, period. If you produce a car, you do not end a life. It's a secondary cause and effect. You can't compare the two. There is no moral wrongdoing in such a thing.

A bit off-topic, but the problem with moral arguments surrounding abortion is that everyone expects everyone else to operate under the same paradigm as them, which is why I didn't even mention it in my post. A pro-choice activist does not consider a foetus to be "alive" in a morally relevant sense, so even if they have the same definition as you when it comes to what constitutes an immoral act, they are not going to see abortion as a "moral wrongdoing".

It turns out that it's very difficult to form a coherent argument for why any one stage of foetal development is "alive" when the one before it isn't, whether you're talking about a zygote or a baby that has just exited the womb, which is why these arguments always turn into word games surrounding what constitutes a "life". A lot of posters here are devout Christians and take their cues on when life begins from the Bible, which is fine, but the Bible is not an adequate authority for instructing a secular, democratic nation how to behave.

The result is that, since abortion is a difficult-to-resolve argument, and since it's convenient to a lot of people, and since many who do not see a fetus as morally relevant are more concerned with the "moral wrongdoing" of bringing a child into the world un-provided-for, it's always going to come down to numbers. How many people want it legalised vs. how many people want it banned, or if it's already legal, how late should the deadline be? Whatever position you hold, this is the reality.

Back on topic - the point is, the only similarity a zygote and a bald eagle's egg have in this comparison is that they're both eggs, the arguments surrounding them are not the same, however nice a sound bite it makes for traditionalists.

And in regards to the cars/aeroplanes thing, you're right, if you factor in the infrastructure facilitated by cars/planes, they probably save vastly more lives than they take, so perhaps that's the wrong comparison with which to frame my argument. What I was getting at is that arguments surrounding conservation aren't always based on wrongdoing against the animals themselves by driving them to extinction; many people derive benefit from their continued existence, and you're butting heads with all of them if you want to shoot the last tiger.

Post: #170

He should not have killed this lion but it was legal. Zimbabwe is fucked up.

Post: #171

Post: #172

Isn't Jimmy Kimmel the guy who got all choked up & beta over....Sarah Silverman?

Post: #173

(08-02-2015 07:50 AM)Ocelot Wrote:  It turns out that it's very difficult to form a coherent argument for why any one stage of foetal development is "alive" when the one before it isn't, whether you're talking about a zygote or a baby that has just exited the womb, which is why these arguments always turn into word games surrounding what constitutes a "life". A lot of posters here are devout Christians and take their cues on when life begins from the Bible, which is fine, but the Bible is not an adequate authority for instructing a secular, democratic nation how to behave.

It's actually very easy to form a coherent argument, as long as it starts from the objective fact that life starts at conception. It's when people find that fact unacceptable that they have to construct obfuscated arguments. I always lay out the bullet-point reasons why a fetus must be considered a person to remain morally consistent, as I did in the baby monger thread, and no one ever rebuts it. Often differences in opinions come down to people choosing what to believe, rather than observing what to believe.
And I'm as atheist as they come, vehemently anti-theist in fact. That the many Christians here come to the same conclusion merely points to one thing: the guys who wrote their magic book happened to have fairly good morals.

Post: #174

(08-02-2015 08:06 AM)captndonk Wrote:  He should not have killed this lion but it was legal. Zimbabwe is fucked up.

It seems like it wasn't legal. Any moral judgments aside, the dentist made a really stupid mistake when he traveled to a country as corrupt and dysfunctional as Zimbabwe without being 100% sure that what he was doing was legal. Trusting locals (who probably only care about getting foreign cash) when they said it's legitimate was, at best, stratospherically naive. With a government like that, anything less than unimpeachable documentation of legality is a huge red flag.

Post: #175

"A well-nourished Sudanese man steals maize from a starving child during food distribution"



"The picture shows something that happens every second in Africa and other Third World countries. My job is to bring back telling images. This one moved people and still does, so I did what I was there to do. I'm very proud of my work from Sudan." Tom Stoddart

The original link was taken down as this is an old pic, but heres a reddit link

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/o...ze_from_a/

And people are crying about an animal?