Be Excellent To Each Other

I would rather see more 'let's gather our anger and outrage and seek to appeal to the authorities in Zimbabwe and other nations to outlaw the hunting of lions and other endangered animals' rather than 'let's find this **** and tear his vital organs out and shove them down his throat', etc.

Clickbait headline, but this is an interesting article:
http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/lio ... 1720901473


I'm not sure I agree entirely, but it makes a good point.

A dentist of near pensionable age is a lot safer target than Robert Mugabe. Whose surname is " e ba gum" backwards which never fails to elicit a smile from me.

I think what you say is true in both cases, Grim...

I think there is, however, a disjoint in the moral psyche for many that separates killing a bred animal from killing a wild animal. Now, in the terms of hunting for food, I am not sure where I stand on this. As long as the animal is abundant, not endangered in any way, then I would imagine that the animal in the wild has probably, until that point, had a better life in the wild. However, on the flipside, they are more likely to be killed in a less humane way, haphazard, where they may sustain injuries and escape to be wounded until their eventual death, or suffer a painful ending due to the method of killing. They are also more likely to have dependant offspring that will suffer without future care provision.

I think many people's natural morality, however, says that if you kill (to eat, maybe even to just hunt) an animal raised or the purpose you are not taking them out of nature's 'pot'. If you take a life from the wild (especially in a species that is not abundant) you are depriving nature of the chance to re-stock and calibrate the balance (however out of balance that may be because of the impact of other human actions such as habitation, industry, etc).

See I think that morality is massively more influenced by the desire to eat yummy steaks than any objective considerations over the rights and wrongs of where and how the animal was killed.

Very much

Wild animals killed by hunters have, up to that point, well, been wild animals, and probably had quite a nice life. Farmed animals killed for food really, really haven't.

I try to avoid kosher and halal meat, for what it is worth, but other than that, I don't give much thought to poultry or cattle processing.

The problem I have is that I really do believe all this stuff and yet I still eat meat, which makes me worse than anyone really.

Someone reposted something on reddit yesterday about how "stalking" a lion is a ridiculous concept. It showed that even in the wild Lions act like big domestic cats. They lounge about in the sun and pay absolutely no heed to humans at all. They will literally shade themselves in the shadow of a safari truck. Stalking and killing a Lion is nothing more than waiting for it to walk into range of your crossbow.

Here it is http://imgur.com/gallery/59N0c

I eat meat and I'm well aware of where is comes from, which astoundingly is not the case for a lot of people.

I will avoid meat where I understand that the animals have not been killed or kept well.

I won't eat pork from the EU as they don't have the same rules of pig welfare as the UK, I also will not eat any meat from the US as they way they keep and kill animals is disgusting.

Although I'm a meat eater I will eat fish or something else much to my brothers annoyance the odd time we have dinner is some US steak house in London.

FUnnily enough, as I get older my taste for red meat is declining. I think it's because MrsPaz doesn't eat much meat* and we don't tend to give it to the kids much. I had Quorn 'chicken' in my pasta the other day, for the Love of God!

* Pre-emptive

Yes, that's true. Though also I can see from the slight that the slaughter process from a regulated standpoint is perhaps more humane than taking a shot and just hoping you hit the right part, which leads onto MaliA's point about other methods of slaughter (particularly within religious guidelines) which many would argue are less humane.

I did read an article the other day where somewhere (Denmark, I think it may have been) has outlawed Kosher and halal slaughter due to animal cruelty.

I like a steak, but we tend to eat chicken and fish mostly. My son is at the age where every 3 weeks there are teeth coming through so he tends to like the softer texture of fish over meat.

Also red meat is not supposed to be good thing all the time

I would genuinely like to eat more vegetarian stuff, my sister in law is Indian and I've been to many weddings where there was no meat, but the food was so good you didn't miss it.

I'm sorry, but there's a world of difference. Look, the hypocrisy of myself personally, and every other meat eater who's criticising this man is wholly acknowledged and admitted, as indeed I said in my first post. But there are limits to the extent and scope of this hypocrisy; it most certainly isn't absolute.

Surely we can all agree that there IS a difference between sourcing meat from a supermarket to EAT, which factually will have been produced as under a legally binding animal welfare and husbandry set of laws and regulations (as imperfect as they may be, last I looked we weren't wounding cows with crossbows then coming back with shotguns to finish 'em off 40 hours later), and killing a wild, possibly endangered animal (within a protected, wild environment) not to eat, but for "pleasure"? As if a more wide distinction were even needed, I say again, the animal was willfully and purposely attacked with an inhumane, entirely inappropriate and unnecessary weapon, leading to 40 hours of pain, fear and suffering?

If anyone can't see the clear and absolute difference between these things in moral terms then frankly there's not much else I can add. Yes, I do feel guilt about eating meat as I've said, but I'll be damned if I'm pigeon holing myself in the same moral category as this cunt for so doing.

As for Mimi's wider point about "just one lion" etc., yes of course, but if you're going to take that line we'd never do anything about anything - this whole 'perfect world or bust' argument falls flat for me. If I went round my neighbour's house and strangled their dog, or if I shot a bullock with a crossbow, I don't think it would cut much ice for me to say "yeah, well, YOUR A MEET EATER!!11 so ur just as bad" etc., now would it? The concept to grasp here, I suggest, is the notion of the 'standalone offence' which is entirely independent of and outwith the often much bigger shit that (sadly) goes on in the world.

This principle applies more widely of course, 'perfect world or bust' is oft applied to all other things besides animal welfare; we can't solve everything so there's no moral imperative (or indeed point) in doing anything, so, next time I get pulled for speeding, I can tell the copper to "go and sort the starving millions in Africa before you issue me a speeding ticket for my ultimately inconsequential and victimless misdemeanor, officer".

Seriously, it's all pretty daft when you think about it, and people tie themselves in moral knots where it's really not needed. Look, it's really simple: this guy's an arse for what he's done and he deserves everything that's coming to him. The end.

If memory serves: Grouse are kept on Ilkley Moor to be shot when the time is right. Every year there are complaints over it, but the council always points out that the £10k a year they get for this maintains the Moor.

It is also worth a mention that on top of the statutory regulatory frameworks, supermarket chains regularly audit suppliers. I know of one that will not buy meats unless the supplier agrees to unannounced inspections and these standards are high. The factories take pride in getting top marks, too.

That guy makes some very good but depressing points

But it shouldn't. Nobody has said it is wrong for people to get het up about one lion, but as the hunting of lions is now pretty much mentioned in every article, to say that this isn't a one-off, why aren't more people asking why it's still a practice. It's because people like to rally against one man than against a practice, or for a cause. People can get behind a witch hunt easier than behind a cause which they can't make an angry post about for three days and then forget about.



That's really not the same thing as anything that anyone is talking about.

If you strangled a friend's dog, and every day people around the country made it a normal pastime to strangle the dogs of their friends and neighbours, but we raised a massive witch hunt against you and this one incident of friendly dog strangling, then there would be some similarity. Thankfully, this is not the case.

I've skimmed this thread and I really don't understand your confusion Mimi. Why this one Lion? It's pretty obvious isn't it?

All day, every day, tragedies of all kinds happen all over the world to tens of millions of people. It would be mentally and emotionally impossible to be aware of and cope with the knowledge of all of these things. At best you would become incredibly depressed at the vast scale of misery and woe faced by the human race.

But we don't do that. We chug along in most blissful ignorance that while bad things probably happen, we don't know about them and we're happier for it. Unless something gets picked up by the media and repeated. Crafted in a way to tug at those heartstrings and cause outrage - and to go viral, so subsequent stories about it can be written. Papers sold, hits made to websites. Ultimately the media is a money-making machine and the story is the product and they don't give a fuck either.

So why this one Lion? Because people have been made aware of it. That's all. I'm as outraged as anyone (I believe I said on Facebook that he was a twatface that should only be allowed to kill a lion if he could use his bare hands), but even I know that worse stuff happens every day.

Sometimes this media hype can achieve a useful end. And by useful I don't mean the utter harassment of this tosser (or, say, getting a Nobel Laureate fired for making a fucking joke you honking reactionary cunts). The dentist dude is pretty much toast as far as his business and reputation go, and when the internet decides you're in for it there's very little coming back. The guy's best hope is the next outrage will eventually make people forget about him, and they probably will after he changes his name, appearance, and moves state.

No, the positive outcome might be enough publicity to do something like banning the hunting of lions for sport. If permits go to fund conservation they shouldn't - money should come from elsewhere. People on the internet will throw signatures at it (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/821/738/ ... zimbambwe/ - 900k here) or money, or something else which *might* achieve something.

Of course, we're in the West and Zimbabweans barely care. I read this quote on the BBC today:



This local cunt thinks we're all up in arms because the lion was possibly named after some colonial guy nobody has ever heard of? Fuck off you idiotic moron.

There's no point here. The world is as it is. The internet makes everything within reach and anyone can become a target of its shrill and mercurial bandwagon. This is seldom to the good.

I thought it was named after Rhodes, too.

I'm not up on my colonial history. The guy is saying we're up in arms because it was debateably named after him and not because it was a tragic event in and of itself. I say again, fuck off.

No, sorry Mimi, your whole argument still seems predicated on "other people are doing it, so why pick on this one guy [or even, that makes it less unacceptable on some level?]", upon which we fundamentally disagree.

I refer again to the concept of standalone wrongdoing. Assaults, rape, even murders are happening all over the world, every hour of every day, but you know, we still vilify and prosecute violent people, rapists and murderers, nevertheless.

Animal cruelty happens all over the world, including in the UK (and, no doubt, "legitimately" as part of the abattoir business or whatever), but we still pursue, vilify and prosecute people who are cruel to animals, and the RSPCA still exists despite any "institutional, state-sanctioned" animal cruelty that goes on, and it does a bloody good, very worthwhile (if imperfect) job, too, as against a morally imperfect backdrop.

As I've said, the difference between us is essentially a pragmatic one. In my case, just because there is imperfection and hypocrisy (quite possibly gross hypocrisy) in terms of who does, or does not get prosecuted and so on, that doesn't in any way diminish or remove the imperative or merit in trying to do good stuff, in trying to right some of the world's wrongs. At least, that's my particular world view.

Disagree entirely, I'm not blaming anyone for their natural reaction, it was mine too. And nor am I saying that issues should somehow only be dealt with in order of importance. Just saying that it shouldn't be "The end." that people need to also think a little further because that's how things get better. Revenge has its place but so does careful introspection and then considering the wider picture and where can we we do that if not somewhere like this?

Finally an outpouring of EBG and Cavey that I can get behind.

The problem is the reserves need to be managed, the animals are protected and are in smaller spaces than in the wild. The irony is they create these to protect animals threatened by human interference then find that they still need to intervene as too many of one animal becomes a problem within the reserves.

So they find that to manage they have to kill animals to keep numbers down, there is a market in the US where people will pay to shoot animals the reserve staff would probably have to do anyway

So even if they had all the money they needed animals would still sadly have to be controlled

No, I've not said that at all.

You are suggesting that I am saying 'don't pick on this guy - everyone else is doing it!'

What I am saying is: 'other people are doing this, too! We should be angry with each and every one of them. We should campaign to stop this in the countries and governments that allow it - for all lions - for all species that are endangered'.

That would likely be a terrible thing for the lion population. If there was no incentive for the locals to keep the lions alive, then poachers would start becoming a real problem.

Fair enough Mark, you're a better man than me. "Internet bandwagon" or no, I just can't feel anything but cold, steely hatred for this man. Sorry.

I'll leave it there, I think, as I'm becoming angry.

From a hunting-for-sportsman's point of view, shooting a lion before all the lions run out is probably an smart move.

Like whoever got the last fork full of sweet, sweet dodo pâté.

Could human presence be viewed as an evolutionary pressure?

Well shit son, I wasn't outlining a plan for economic sustainability of the local area. Mugabe knows he's the single biggest impediment to the prosperity of Zimbabwe but he doesn't give a fuck and would rather cling to illegal power until he dies.

You should feel vile hatred for him, though.

I think it must have been said about 50 times over in this thread that nobody is suggesting that is the wrong reaction, how you keep reading it as something else is entirely beyond me. But you should feel that vile disdain for everyone else that has done this as well, as there seem to be many. If you care particularly about lions, then I suppose that is understandable that you feel a greater sense of loss for this one species than for another (much as dog lovers will support dog charities more than cat charities) but I think the other lions that are being hunted, and the other men and women that hunt them should be just as much a subject of your ire as this dentist. Make the picture wider, make it bigger - see the whole thing and use the scale of the problem as the basis for action.

Mimi, you shouldn't be that confused. Do you really think the internet gave a fucking fuck about ALS? No, they were just parroting the ice bucket challenge to go with the viral crowd while mumbling some inanity about how it was a good cause. Sure, a good cause that none of those people really had a personal connection with, or gave a shit about. It looks good for your fake internet profile but it doesn't mean anything - it's all bollocks. None of these armchair campaigners are going to fly to Africa to defend the lions personally and nobody should really expect them to.

No I'm not, what have I done about it? Fuck all, that's what. I just can't help thinking that it would be infinitely preferable if this could be a catalyst for more than revenge for this one single incident.

And not giving them any money.

Well, then that's a shame. It doesn't have to be a big action such as flying to Africa: start or sign a petition, or just post about the extent of the problem to bring the wider cause into the spotlight would be something.

Sadly, I think you may be right. I think that many of the people that are up in internet arms over this just jump on the cause because it is the current done thing. I do genuinely think that there are some people (and no, I don't mean folks here, who I consider to be in the upper half of the internet intelligence spectrum) that enjoy the idea of a witch hunt and don't give a poop about the creature that has been killed though, and that bothers me a bit.

I'm sorry, but where exactly did I say I don't feel vile disdain for any other people out there who wound and then eventually kill wild lions for 'sport'? For the avoidance of doubt, my utter disdain for such types isn't predicated on their being balding, American rich dentists.



Again, where have I said I don't care about other lions being hunted, other species being hunted, other people doing said hunting? It is perfectly legitimate (and appropriate to the thread's subject matter) to comment on this ONE case, but you should not read into that in so doing, this somehow means that I, or anyone else, doesn't give a stuff about the wider picture AS WELL.

As for "action", well, again, I never claimed I was going to fly out to Africa to save the lion or whatever, I'm clearly not going to. But this isn't some prerequisite for expressing extreme disapproval about something and/or someone, on an internet forum, and nor does a lack of (pretty impractical and unlikely) 'direct action' on my part diminish this. Otherwise, pretty much no-one could say anything ever, or be offended by anything ever, and hey, we're back to the "perfect world or bust" situation yet again.

I feel like you chaps are arguing about which direction your hair is being split.

Lions good. Man bad. Internet bad and silly. Us good. Also cake good. Friday good also.

Buffy good beer bad

I don't have much hair left to split, as Mimi knows.

But yeah, "Man bad. Lion good." is pretty much what I'm saying; the internet is undoubtedly silly, and cake is unquestionably awesome. So are Fridays.

Cake. Friday. Cake. Yes.

I can recommend buying 12 massive Costco muffins for £5.99 and freezing them. Take one out first thing and enjoy with a coffee 90 mins later.

I started doing this after realising spunking £1.35 on a smaller inferior muffin from the local coffee shop was just silly. My day to day problems are pretty tough but somehow I find my way through.

Not you, everyone Cavey. I only used the 'you' nominator as you seem to have been repeatedly suggesting that I was saying something quite different to that which I was actually saying, which you seemed to be disagreeing with. What I want those who are posting 'this **** needs to be ***** shot with his own gun' to perhaps think about instead (or as well, they don't need to rid themselves of one sentiment to widen it to another' is 'these governments need to make the act of killing lions for sport an illegal action, where privilege of wealth does not allow man to hunt these creatures' or however they might word it.

But fine, I see that people on Facebook, Twitter, etc have no interest in this. They just want this one case strung up so they can shout about it for a few days, call a few names,and then forget all about it and move onto the next news story that they can make threats and swear words towards. I do 'get' that's how it works, I just wish it didn't.

That's nonsense. He's clearly pointing the camera forwards, not taking a 'selfie with lion' in that penultimate frame.

Hey, no worries Meems, sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick here.

But man, this whole thing does make me angry, so help me.

That last frame is a selfie the lion took with the hunter's dead body as lion's are killers and he is killing him and mocking him.

No wait, the black bits are his arms!

He's giving the lion bunny ears!!

Don't be silly. There are no reasons to apologise. I do agree with you, the guy is a total prat, and he is paying for it now. The only thing I do hope for is that there is a resulting reluctance for rich businessmen and the like to now join up to hun such animals, even if not for the moral reprehensions then at least the fear of a similar backlash happening to them, potentially ruining their career, business or reputation.

Again, that would be A Bad Thing for the lions as a whole.