viv wrote:I have been most upset and angry over Cecil's death …
Me too.
Why Killing A Lion Is The Most Cowardly Thing You Can Do
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/why-kill ... ek58b9BKbY
Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall
viv wrote:I have been most upset and angry over Cecil's death …
viv wrote:I have been most upset and angry over Cecil's death and I don't believe it's hypocritical at all. Many humans are still in the swamps and I believe that Cecil's death will open the door to increased awareness of the suffering of all animals.
The dentist who killed Cecil is nowhere to be found, well at least he knows to stay hidden - he's a marked man.
Viv
CarrotTopsRGreen wrote:I believe a large part of the outrage is that this lion, who was living in a protected place, was deliberately lured out of the sanctuary to his death. Then he was shot with an arrow and suffered for 40 hours while he was hunted down and ultimately put out of his terrible misery. I have never been a hunter and could never kill an animal unless it was threatening me or another person. However, I do see a huge difference between the unnecessary killing of a lion simply for the joy of killing something, and someone killing a deer where they would eat the meat and use the hide etc. Paying more than $50,000 to do this also adds a particularly odious element to this sordid story. Sport hunting is not new, of course. In our own nation's history, the buffalo were killed nearly to extinction and the carcasses were left to rot on the ground. Theodore Roosevelt was presented with a bear cub in a cage to kill. He declined, and the teddy bear toy was created as a result of the widely-reported story.
BlueHeron wrote:People could argue that the lion's corpse was just left to rot, so this killing was purely for the "fun" of it. This would make it different even from deer hunting, since hunters eat deer. And, frankly, I'm glad that attention has been brought to trophy hunting and that people are getting to the point where that seems appalling. I'll call that progress. The people of my state (Michigan) have just voted against the trophy hunting of wolves, but the legislature is saying it's OK, so there's a court case going on, and I don't know if the trophy hunt is going to be allowed or not.
But the upshot is that, for most people, killing an animal for pleasure is OK if the pleasure is taste.
f1jim wrote:Its all about pleasing a sense. In the case of killing the lion, feeling a sense of "the great white hunter" marching into danger and dispatching the source of danger is appealing to ones senses at a certain level.
Dispatching an animal because the taste of bacon is especially yummy appeals to another set of senses.
Which is more correct? Which is more politically correct? Does either make any sense given the world we live in today?
It seems one cannot in good conscience place the killing of the lion as more of an affront to nature than killing a pig for bacon. Given the same circumstances the pig could develop a bond with humans and be just as revered as the lion was. Was the lion, being the top of the food chain to be cherished more than the lowly pig? Thousands of pigs have become cherished family pets over the decades. Is the pigs innate worth less than the lions?
I think the killing of any animal for other than self protection is a waste. So is the killing of an animal for food. I have trouble seeing any significant differences except for the value as a headline.
f1jim
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests