|
| Thread: Feral Cats of Australia |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 18, 2015 12:19 PM |
|
|
off-topic/
yeah, i never did understand the bragging rights thing when it came to killing animals. and they're using high-powered tools to do it, too. i mean, how lame can you get? i feel the same way about trophies(mounted heads, stuffed carcasses, and whatnot). it's just unnecessary, and quite tasteless, to be honest. it's also pretty disrespectful of food. like it was only an object, and didn't nourish you when you ate it.
really, who the hell wants to point to a head on a wall/stuffed carcass, and talk to some other bonehead about killing an animal with a tool that outmatches you against the animal 20-1? if the thing was able to chuck grenades at you, that'd be another story. but no, it's bambi/thumper/whatever. the damn thing can only hoof/butt/bite the snow out of you. if you can't take it out with a simple full-tang knife(our version of claws and teeth), you shouldn't be allowed to kill it, period.
that's my take on the whole thing, anyway.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 12:21 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
I don't see the bloody point.
Making sure Australia can keep its ecological diversity.
Doomforge said:
idk, guys with rifles posting next to an animal carcass make my stomach turn.
Agreed
Doomforge said:
Disgusting. We're supposed to be the pinnacle of Earth's evolution, and that just downgrades us to a pathetic ape-like joke.
as far as i'm concerned, we kinda are.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 03:07 PM |
|
|
I have never understood why people care about animal rights. Animals have no agency. They do not care if we kill them. Hunting doesn't make them unhappy. Meanwhile humans have agency and some of them feel happy about hunting - so let them. Their happiness doesn't come at the expense of others.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
LizardWarrior 
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 03:59 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I have never understood why people care about animal rights.They do not care if we kill them. Hunting doesn't make them unhappy. Meanwhile humans have agency and some of them feel happy about hunting - so let them. Their happiness doesn't come at the expense of others.
I honestly don't understand you, you advocate about all people rights to sodomize each-other but don't give a damn about animal rights? So it's so offensive and intolerant for you that 2 men can't bone each-other in public, yet you don't give two craps about massacring fauna or mistreating animals? I'm not Peta crazy, I eat meat, my father owns a small farm and I help him butcher a swine every year, I even think hunting is okay when it respects certain rules and has a reason (for food, during the season, clean kill), but that's a long way from spitting the aberrations you say.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 04:13 PM |
|
|
I think is more about how the superior species we are, define life in all its uniques forms, as present on earth. And, in the end, this comprehension defines who we are then our destiny. Because our destiny and survival are intrinsically related to how we threat our planet and other species.
Paradoxically, in this case, the decision to kill millions of animals is saving other species while not harming the cats species existence.
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 04:16 PM |
|
|
People don't remember what happened last time when Australia went to war with animals 
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 05:02 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I have never understood why people care about animal rights. Animals have no agency. They do not care if we kill them. Hunting doesn't make them unhappy. Meanwhile humans have agency and some of them feel happy about hunting - so let them. Their happiness doesn't come at the expense of others.
there's a thing called responsibility. perhaps you've heard of it? maybe they need to make "responsibility as the top predator of the earth who has the capabilities of moral and ethical values, not to mention, the drastically-needed desire to be a useful force on the earth, instead of a needlessly destructive and uncaring one" an actual class in school. maybe something you have to continue in college. or maybe, a t.v. series. people might pay better attention then. there should be children's books on the subject. oh wait, there are.
as for animals having an "agent", you and i are both animals. so human beings are the animal's agents. what a horrible word to use to describe something so important. you need to realize that every species(and sub-species) on earth EXCEPT humans fit a specific and important role for the respective environments that they have spent centuries adapting to(that they all have a reason for being). that every other species BUT us follow some order, and anything out of line will screw that natural order up(including any meddling we do)? do you realize just HOW unnecessary and wholly out of place human beings are on this planet? how they serve NO purpose other than radical change and wanton destruction of everything else?
hunting merely to make one species happy is wasteful and incredibly foolish. your outlook epitomizes what i despise about the human race.
yeah, what lizardwarrior said. he pretty much nailed it.
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 06:12 PM |
|
|
LizardWarrior said:
People don't remember what happened last time when Australia went to war with animals
There was also a war with plantsin Australia. In XIX Century a species of cactus was brought into Australia. Since it didn't have any natural competitors, it thrived and quickly became a weed. In order to erradicate its population, its only natural enemy was also introduced - a certain species of caterpillars. Because of gargantuar population of the plant, insects quickly reproduced and eliminated the threat posed by the cactus. Australians were so grateful that they even built a statue comemorating caterpillars' efforts. 
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 06:22 PM |
|
|
You pose in front of an animal you've slain or fish you caught for the same reason you pose when you've scored a goal, or won a game tournament, or are in front of a monument. You're celebrating a special moment and it's a natural & healthy human behavior to exhibit for building self-esteem and building friendship with those around you. People that never exhibit gestures of triumph (avoid all photos, toasts, cards, congratulations, etc.) are generally suspect to anti-social tendencies. "Anti-social" meaning "belligerent, or lacking empathy", and are less happy than the rest of the population. Celebrating after a successful hunt is literally - without exception - universal in every historical human tribe on every continent. It has a highly positive impact on building community and trust.
Of course if you view the species as being equal, you're never going to use animal products, let alone approve of posing in photographs of them after a successful hunt. That's a given. But most of us possess a rational positive prejudice towards humanity.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 08:51 PM |
|
|
Well, "celebrating the hunt" kind of contradicts with modern ethics that suggests you should try to empathize with not just other cultures but even with other (at least highly intelligent) life forms. There is a difference between posing with a fish and posing with an elephant, there are degrees to it. Yet, one can easily say bragging about killing is an outdated form of triumph, kind of like bragging about "slapping some sense into your woman" in the post-feminist era.
You may also be surprised to hear that while all ancient cultures saw hunting as a -naturally- necessary deed, the traditional hunters sat down and apologized to the prey for having to kill them to be able to feed. To people who were connected to the wilderness all the time and considered themselves as part of it, hunting wasn't usually seen as a joyful event. Some anthropologists suggest that since humans are the only specie with a lucid conscience and conceptualization about death, the invention of religions was not just about fear or anxiety about one's own death but also about the guilt of killing others to be able to live on. A lot of studied rituals and ceremonies seem to approve that.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:01 PM |
|
|
|
It is also part of american guns culture, there was a depressing article about some female hunter.
|
|
phe
Famous Hero
Life and Freedom
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:10 PM |
|
|
Why don't catch them instead of hunting? Bring then to some island and separate by sex.
On the other hand, it's natural that some species come, replace others. It has been changing all the time since life appeared on Earth.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:15 PM |
|
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:17 PM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 21:49, 18 Jul 2015.
|
I don't see how this is a problem a Salamandre said the cats species is not going to go extinct from this and it would be helping the other species that might as a result of the cat explosion. On a side note I have an itching feeling no one would give a single snow if the creature being killed was say, a large cat sized insect.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
phe
Famous Hero
Life and Freedom
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:22 PM |
|
Edited by phe at 21:40, 18 Jul 2015.
|
xerox said:
I have never understood why people care about animal rights. Animals have no agency. They do not care if we kill them. Hunting doesn't make them unhappy. Meanwhile humans have agency and some of them feel happy about hunting - so let them. Their happiness doesn't come at the expense of others.
Pygmy peoples don't have agency too. I don't know if they have right to vote. Other Africans hunted for them some time ago. Animals feel and suffer the same like people. Many of them cry, fight deadly protecting offspring etc...From people we should expect more...
LizardWarrior said:
my father owns a small farm and I help him butcher a swine every year, I even think hunting is okay when it respects certain rules and has a reason (for food, during the season, clean kill)
Most terrible thing from my childhood to remember is slaughtering animals on grandparents' farm. There is no need to use animals at all. We should liberate them. Living without meat is easy.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:45 PM |
|
|
It's very obvious Xerox has no clue to what he's talking about when he says things like "They do not care if we kill them. Hunting doesn't make them unhappy" etc. I don't think he has ever witnessed an animal getting slain in front of him. Compare how moderate and sensitive LizardWarrior speaks who actually helps his father butcher a swine every year.
phe said:
On the other hand, it's natural that some species come, replace others. It has been changing all the time since life appeared on Earth.
Well, as it has already been pointed out, if you take out the mass extinctions caused by volcano eruptions, meteors, climate change etc, that process has a very slow pace. But yes, nature has no conscience or "order" in that sense, if you are wiped out, that's just that. Mass extinctions are not unnatural and one can claim that the results of human existence can also be considered as part of the cosmic gamble. (Although, it may lead to the destruction of our own habitat and even extinction of our own specie in the distant future.) But here's the thing, on that broader, nihilistic perspective, human rights are also artificial. It is an invented concept, nothing more. We are capable of civilization, which functions different than the wilderness, so the question is, do we prefer a civilization that causes mass extinctions or a civilization that prevents them.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:52 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:03, 18 Jul 2015.
|
Sorry what Phe? "Pygmy people's" are Homo sapiens sapien. They have the same cognitive capacities and as thus rights as any other human.
LizardWarrior said:
I honestly don't understand you, you advocate about all people rights to sodomize each-other but don't give a damn about animal rights? So it's so offensive and intolerant for you that 2 men can't bone each-other in public, yet you don't give two craps about massacring fauna or mistreating animals? I'm not Peta crazy, I eat meat, my father owns a small farm and I help him butcher a swine every year, I even think hunting is okay when it respects certain rules and has a reason (for food, during the season, clean kill), but that's a long way from spitting the aberrations you say.
Actually it's okay for two men to bone each other in public, if that is what they both wish. There's a whole porn genre about it. You should look it up. Might enjoy it.
fred79] said:
There's a thing called responsibility. perhaps you've heard of it? maybe they need to make "responsibility as the top predator of the earth who has the capabilities of moral and ethical values, not to mention, the drastically-needed desire to be a useful force on the earth, instead of a needlessly destructive and uncaring one" an actual class in school. maybe something you have to continue in college. or maybe, a t.v. series. people might pay better attention then. there should be children's books on the subject. oh wait, there are.
as for animals having an "agent", you and i are both animals. so human beings are the animal's agents. what a horrible word to use to describe something so important. you need to realize that every species(and sub-species) on earth EXCEPT humans fit a specific and important role for the respective environments that they have spent centuries adapting to(that they all have a reason for being). that every other species BUT us follow some order, and anything out of line will screw that natural order up(including any meddling we do)? do you realize just HOW unnecessary and wholly out of place human beings are on this planet? how they serve NO purpose other than radical change and wanton destruction of everything else?
hunting merely to make one species happy is wasteful and incredibly foolish. your outlook epitomizes what i despise about the human race.
Where does this responsibility come from? From what authority?
My view is that humans have no (and don't need a) purpose and no responsibility except for the responsibilities that we choose ourselves. I do not see myself as having any responsibility for other animals for it is of no matter to them. Only individuals have rights and an Indivudal is someone who has the cognitive capacity to be self-aware. Someone who's not entirely bound by instinct and can look to its situation and wish to be free. If an animal would have such a capacity, then I would approve of the view that we have a responsibility to enforce its rights. For any other life form it is better that resources are spent to advance our own happiness instead of making sacrifices for something that's not able to care for any responsibility we pretend we have towards it.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 09:59 PM |
|
|
What about the mentally disabled, should we be allowed to hunt them? They can't make their own decisions either, they are not fit to sign a contract, are they fair game?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
phe
Famous Hero
Life and Freedom
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 10:04 PM |
|
Edited by phe at 22:18, 18 Jul 2015.
|
xerox said:
Sorry what Phe? "Pygmy people's" are Homo sapiens sapien. They have the same cognitive capacities and as thus rights as any other human.
Would you hunt for Homo erectus or austrolopitecus if they still live with a bit less cognitive capabilities? Animals feel the same. It doesn't matter if they read, count etc. Better to hunt for criminals. They understand that they make harm to others...
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2015 10:08 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:09, 18 Jul 2015.
|
We know that Neanderthals had a culture and such so that's a good example of another species we ought to protect.
Artu: I'm pretty sure your mental disability has to be super severe if it cause you to lose self-awareness. The answer however is no. It is your species that matters not your status.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
