College Liberal

Not in 50 years. ;c

People are nature too.

People have also been able to isolate themselves from nature and remove themselves from the danger of it; let's not bullshit this. We're not little tribes people in a rainforest gutting and eating trees. Regardless of our existence being a natural byproduct, we don't have to abide by the rules of nature. Nature and ethics have nothing to do with one another. In nature, there is also rape, abduction, theft, deceit, etc... That does not make any of these things ethical.

But we are the most incredible "byproduct of nature". Though it may be that an unethical decision was made to kill the lion, it is still that very conscious decision that makes the dentist's life more precious than the lion's. To trivialize the dentist's life and hope for his misery is hardly taking the moral high ground. Animals are great and should be respected, but I'd rather see humans learn to respect each other first.

And let's not forget Koko the Gorilla, who can speak sign language (and had a pet cat she mourned when it went missing/died). And Alex the Parrot, which actually had a concept of the human language and talked, as opposed to just mimicking. It's sad that an animal has to be so go***mn exceptional for its own species just to prove to people that they don't function as unconscious property, but sadder that people don't take the time to actually look into it.

Look into the dentist's life. Maybe he is a great guy who helps humanity and donates to wildlife foundations. Maybe he was just hired the wrong guide. Maybe he thought he was helping the ecosystem by reducing an artificially thriving lion population. Maybe he's afraid to go to court in Zimbabwe for fear of being judged by a kangaroo court. Ha, kangaroo court! I bet animal rights activists would love to see a literal kangaroo court. What with there unsurpassed logic and reasoning skills and their unwavering desire to seek justice. Maybe we should ask Alex the parrot what he thinks should be done.

Seriously? He spent $50,000 just to hunt down Cecil SPECIFICALLY. He knew it was Zimbabwe's most loved lion. Also, all these animals we're talking about had/have families that they care about and complex emotions.

Nothing I've read said he "specifically" targeted Cecil.

Abolitionists were zealots and held in the same regard. I see no weakness in the label, nor value in the assessment of my opponents' convictions. If your argument is that I have no mass appeal, well no shit. I saw someone at Ted Talks who had "mass appeal." He basically took 20 minutes to say, "Eat less meat and pat yourself on the back." And honestly? F**k that guy.

I like you, Orcoaba. Sometimes I don't necessarily agree with you, but I like you, man. We should hang out some day.

"Maybe he is a great guy who helps humanity and donates to wildlife foundations."
-"Look into Jeffrey Dahmer's life. Maybe he was a great guy who gave money to orphanages."

Alex the parrot died quite some time ago.

...And lion populations are not thriving in the least. They're "threatened" with recommendations popping up for them to be given protection under endangered species law. Besides that, human intervention has NEVER been good for nature--- it's best to let nature take care of itself.

"What with there unsurpassed..."
-their*

And it's funny you should make a typo, because now I get to inform you that finches have better grammar than you. Yup. Finches are grammar Nazis.
They correct other finches when they don't use the approved bird grammar.
As funny as that sounds, I'm not joking.

Dude, come on. You're comparing the dentist to Dahmer. Animals need advocates, but your radical rhetoric does your cause a disservice.

"Dude, you're comparing a dentist to Dahmer."
Well, if I'm correct that his actions are unethical, then his occupation really has no bearing on his moral character, now does it?

But, fine. No Dahmer... How about Glennon Engleman?
Maybe he was just such a great guy, maybe he slipped money under the family doors of the people he hit?

There. I'm matching you dentist for dentist. Your move, Sherlock.

Neither. I have strong convictions. That doesn't mean I'm radical. I value animal life equal to human life because I know that there is no mental qualitative difference you can find between a human and an animal that you can't find between two humans, and yet in spite of this, we don't use these as reasons to oppress one another. I'm just keeping that logical consistency in tact. I'm not going to reduce the strength of my convictions just so other people can feel better about their own.

I think your argument strengthens the convictions of your opposition. You sir are a zealot. Which isn't always bad, but is seldom the halmark of open-mindedness.

What on Earth makes you think we're the most incredible? A small handful of people taught the idiot masses how to replicate their efforts, without which we'd all still be f**king our sisters in the dirt. The vast majority of our specie is not great. I'm hoping for his misery, because it's punishment. People who do something wrong should be punished, and if anyone deserves to be made an example of for a crime against morality that's gone largely unpunished among its violators, it's this guy. Saying he deserves treatment that reflects his crime isn't trivializing him for the same reason giving Tsarnaev the death penalty is not "trivializing him."

"...it is still that very conscious decision that makes the dentist's life more precious than the lion's."
This is wrong for 2 reasons.
1. There are beings outside of humanity which have a sense of morality.
2. Acting against the correct thing to do IS what lessens one's value- what if I applied what you said to any other moral argument? "The fact that he took that conscious decision to rape a child is what made him more valuable than an animal." -I'll take the animal over the child rapist, thanks.

There are lots of videos online of animals having inter-species play and cooperation.
"Polar Bear Plays With Huskies."
"Swans Feeding Koi Fish"
"Dog Tries to Save Fish"
"Little Tyke the Vegetarian Lioness"

The concepts of choice and morality are not exclusive to humans...
The difference is some animals simply do not have the choice, or the societal structures to be held accountable when they do.
It's when a choice is no choice at all that judgment might be best withheld,
not when the choice made was a bad one weighed against positive alternatives.

And I would say society's disdain for life may have warped yours.

r/p3*** in case you were wondering the censored word... kinda stupid to censor it, but thank you imgflip, there ya go.

It's Zimbabwe.

Where were all of you idiots when lions have been getting shot for years? Where were you when rhinos were hunting into extinction? Oh yeah, the media didn't tell you to be upset. Sorry you can't form your own opinion using facts so you just buy into whatever BS you're fed.

70% of deforestation is for animal agriculture, much of which displaces lion habitats. There you go.

I can respect people that base opinions on facts. What I can't respect is everyone jumping on the "let's blame the dentist train" when they have zero clue what actually happened. Hell, there was absolute outrage over the imaginary killing of Cecil's brother before they announced it was even true. A fake lion killing upset more people than the world falling apart around them. It's sad.

I can agree with that much. What annoys me, however, is people who flip the flying F out when their cause is distracted from for 5 minutes, like it's the only one that deserves attention. I do, however, agree with this particular media crusade in the sense that there will be people who disseminate facts to put things into perspective once the cause has public attention. The media's main job, however, is beefing up the welfare state- and it does that by cherry picking police incidents which involve blacks and poaching incidents and the like which involve wealthy people. As much a piece of shit the dentist is, I feel pretty certain the media's motive is to demonize wealth.