Jimmy Kimmel on the Killing of Cecil the Lion
This is what we've become? He who has the biggest public emotional reaction wins??
Not to mention the witch hunt that is now in hot pursuit.
Jimmy Kimmel... Jackass.
Not to mention the witch hunt that is now in hot pursuit.
Jimmy Kimmel... Jackass.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LzXpE1mjqA
In Michigan many wildlife conservation and preservation controls by the state depend on hunting fees. Many outfitters and businesses depend on the sport. Many hunt for the meat and many hunt for the trophy; but except for poachers that the laws already address, the meat is usually consumed or donated for consumption. Even that which is not is often essential food for the other wildlife if is left in the field. Mother nature wastes little. Even the coyotes need to eat. In Mich. near the turn of the last century the Deer population was nearly zero and the Elk were completely wiped out. The lumber camps had decimated the populations for sustenance. Since the advent of sport hunting and licensing the populations of both are thriving. We have an Elk population again and the Whitetail deer are at record numbers. That is what the sport has done for conservation. It is the legal hunter, both trophy and meat hunter that fund and respect the conservation regulations and efforts. The monies from these hunters has provided for the continuity of the wildlife... purchased land set asides for animals and plant-life for perpetuity. "To hunt a species to extinction is not logical." Spock
It is sad that his particular lion was taken, if it was a "protected" animal, but it would appear that the hunter is not to blame for the mistake of the guides. The animus towards him is probably misplaced.
Respectfully,
O.A.
This particular lion was apparently wearing a tracking collar and being studied. If this was in an effort to sustain the species and keep them off the endangered list that is my only real concern. The collar should have been more visible if they wanted it to be unmolested for further study and the local game commission needed it to sustain the species.. Other than that I have no feelings for this particular beast. I do not believe in domesticating lions. They would just as soon eat your liver as be your buddy.
Now here are some real "Born freers" that have gone off the deep end. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/30...
Real moral people that would kill a man for killing a beast...
Personally my only interest is in the continuation of the species for future needs of ecosystem stability. In a sustainable population there is nothing wrong with hunting. In fact it may be necessary to keep the population from killing too many of other species including humans.
I deer hunt annually on private property and sometimes on vast areas of state land. Deer pose less of a threat to humans. Am I too soft?
Respectfully,
O.A.
I'm just amazed that people let their emotions take over rather than trying to understand why trophy hunting exists...there are benefits and not just monetary, but humans and animals are both better off for it. BLIND SPOT. I'm seriously stunned by the lunatic over reactions going on...angry mobs sharing one emotional top knot. It's scary!
No. I don't think this guy intended anything like profiting from animal fights and suffering like Michael Vick did. Dog fights set up by men for entertainment is definitely different than a hunter whose object is a quick merciful kill, though unfortunately it doesn't always end so. Intention and motivation are very different.
this is what my mom said-"farm life is brutal" she would have been 79 on Tuesday. anyway, you are using your prog words and so therefore it went over my head, dear OA :)
the song is about MEN not about animals
:)
To quote the same film, who ever said the human race is logical. :)
I think I saw that in the theaters when I was 12 y/o.
The only nugget of relevant fact is whether the hunter had the legal right to shoot the lion, and if not whether his shooting it was knowing that or a mistake.
The insanity of the furore is illustrated by the simple fact that this guy killed one lion. Are people so divorced from reality that they don't realise that lions themselves are apex predators who kill, and kill, and kill other animals? If it is OK for a lion to do so, then it is OK for us.
Professor John Hanks is the former head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa. He says tourism and donations do not provide the billions of dollar needed.
“I think trophy hunting in South Africa is really absolutely essential if we are going to look for long-term future for rhinos in the whole of Africa…there’s hardly a single country anywhere that can afford to run its national parks as they should be run… Here we are in South Africa, one of the richest countries in the continent, Kruger Park has a million visitors a year and they still cannot afford to defend the rhinos.”
The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year. The industry employs about 70,000 people. And about 9,000 trophy hunters travel to South Africa every year. Ninety percent of them come from the United States. In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa. Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country.
Herman Meyeridricks is the president of the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa. He argues that legal hunting is important to wildlife protection.
“The only way there will be incentive for those landowners to protect and keep on investing in rhino is if they have an economic value. They can only have an economic value if there is an end-user that is willing to pay for that and that is the trophy hunter.”
Attie says there was much less poaching in those days.
tears. Agree with you about not caring what he
says (or cries) about anything. I consider his
views as trivia and can count the times I've
watched his program on one hand.
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/80...
Excuse me while I go eat some Larry the Lobster.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/200...
city people!!! jeezus
that said if you hunt for food as I have that is okay. but trophy hunting I don't agree with.specifically safari international.
"Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self -delusion— in the long run, these are the only people who count." —Robert A. Heinlein
Someone's opened the gate to the religionist, the believers, the ultra-conservatives, the reality deniers, the deluded, and the posters for points. They've forgotten that the site is intended for those drawn to Objectivism.
Trolls always have an agenda counter to the goals of the sites they Occupy. Lately, drowning is more often seen around here, than drinking.
Killing animals has been a part of man's life since we made the step up to predation, past scavenging. This nonsense of why we kill animals is PC crap from PETA (shoes, clothing, medical testing, food, etc), the Humane Society, and NAPCA BS that we've let seep throughout our society. We are humans--we get to kill animals and pests.
Killing wild animals only to eat is more nonsense. By the time you figure in the costs of guns, ammo, silly camouflage hunting clothes, the trip, the cost to process and make edible if it's a male, your license or fees--it's pretty expensive meat. You're actually hunting for entertainment or trophy, or you wouldn't take a picture of yourself with your kill or mount your buck horns or have your biggest bass stuffed.
I hunt, I fish, I trap--I don't try to PC it. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks about it.
I support Big Cat Rescue, an organization dedicated to eliminating the trade of big cats in the United States. Making a "pet" of an animal that can tear your arm (or any other extremity) off is a really bad idea. Cubs are often taken away from their mothers far sooner that they should be and then abandoned when they grow too big to be a child's toy. It takes serious resources to maintain big cats and, short of a well-funded, private zoo, I don't think they belong in captivity. They are far too dangerous.
That said, I see real value in managing the population of large predators, and think that hunting on private land should be encouraged. It should, however, be done humanely, not the way Cecil was killed. First, he was lured away from his protected location, then shot with an arrow and allowed to suffer for 40 hours before finally being killed. It sounds like this particular hunt was badly mismanaged.
Agree, animals don't have rights, but that is not a reason to abuse them. Not to say hunting is abuse.
Note to self, not to shoot Cecil, or a favorite rhino.
...but this zealot is a poor example of supporting anyone's rights but his own.
Is it a superior moral position to kill a 13 year old lion with children and self-awareness, with an arrow that languishes in pain for 40 hrs, or a human fetus, or a criminal, or ..
What are we arguing in favor of? I don't buy sport vs all all else, when the same people argue the infinite sanctity of human life.
I have no issue with hunting, sportsmanship, even trophy hunting, but I'm missing how people complaining about what this guy did is about his rights or the lack of rights of an animal. I think what he did was stupid and wasteful, although I don't care much.
Is the issue national parks? I must be missing something fundamental. I usually don't feel this ambivalent about anything most of you feel strongly about.
This is like air or noise pollution, with a person compelling others to participate in this transaction. Clearly there is a matter of scale. With a mouse, no third party is even mildly affected. Not so with a lion, particularly this lion. There were 250,000 lions in 1975. There are 25,000 now.
Maybe khalling had a different objection with the national parks statement that came before my relating human to animal life, which is a separate issue probably deserving a thread.
This is relevant to where we are headed in this country so don't knock it to the way side.
Who cares about dismembered babies when there's Cecil to cry over?
Oops, that wasn't PC fetus of me.
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/20...
It's unfortunate that the mainstream media doesn't get this exorcised over Planned Parenthood.
Everybody should have sex available to them, and prostitution is what makes that possible.
I have to PAY in order to not be a citizen. what the f is that about?!
But, if you actually need to ask that question, no amount of explanation will enable you to understand.
As OBJ's most of us would say prostitution is not morally wrong, per se, but rather it's morality is based on the motivations and circumstances of those involved.
A poor woman selling herself to provide for her children is not immoral - just unfortunate.
A properly functioning society MUST have a moral compass to survive. We, as thinking adults know what is moral/immoral. We know that infidelity is immoral. We know that giving drugs to an addict is morally wrong. We know that cheating is immoral.
Your statement "I don't know where to start." is the crux of the matter.
One of the great hallmarks of AR's genius is that she WENT where you "don't know where to start." And in her thorough examination of the matter made some very interesting conclusions...
...like prostitution, in and of itself, is not inherently immoral.
It's interesting reading if you ever get around to it.
Her philosophy is right about a great many things, but it's not infallible.
History is replete with examples of societies that crumbled in large part because morality crumbled.
Freedom and liberty require the morality of Western Civilization to exist. Do deny that is to truly deny reality.
And we are seldom at odds with the Founding Fathers.
As for infallibility, well, I'm already on record as taking some minor variance on rare occasion, but not here. This one seems pretty straight forward in OUR book.
As to where we place her - well, I suppose that's different for each of us, but for me - I consider Ayn Rand to be one of the greatest minds of the 20th century - and in the realm of Philosophy, 2nd only to Aristotle as the greatest mind ever.
As for She vs the Founding Fathers - yes, in those areas they disagree - I side with Her.
As to the morality of Western Civilization, it was formed as much by the Roman invasion, the Viking raids, the Norman invasion, piracy, being born after the first son, witch torture and trials and executions, the Islamic Moors invasion and occupation of Spain and Portugal, indigenous people slaughter, and the theft of other people's gold and silver, as anything else.
Some of the Founders were smugglers, a heavy drinking womanizer of epic proportions, law breakers and criminals, spies and traitors, and even politicians. Most of them had mistresses and some fought duels.
I'm afraid that you're simplistic and wrong description of the 'morality of Western Civilization' only exists in your own mind.
Your historical knowledge is lacking, which would fine if you didn't think you knew more thank you do.
It's a waste of my valuable time to continue to this discussion.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
Western civilization, and our legal system, are based on the morality of Judeo-Christian ethics. I highly recommend you read the writings of the Founding Fathers. The freedom you value is possible only in a moral society.
Again, I urge you to do some historical research.
Before making such factually inaccurate arguments, you would be well-served to actually study the Founding Fathers and rise of Western Civilization.
I knew you would start with the religious stuff...and you did. Check the times of my comments, I accurately predicted it. So, I was 'FACTUALLY ACCURATE'. Want another fact? Our founders were NOT ruled by religion.
They did not want a theocracy, but they absolutely based their beliefs, and the founding of America, on Judeo-Christian principles. That is an undeniable fact for anyone with knowledge of history of Founding.
What is it about these founding principles/facts that you find so displeasing and/or supernaturally unable to accept?
It's exactly that rejection of common knowledge that dooms us to repeat history. Unfortunately, people like you fail to learn from it.
A moral compass is an individual driver that falls apart in groups large enough to be called a society.
Even on actions deemed "moral" by close to everyone, the philosophical underpinning for WHY an action is moral or not varies widely.
Your concept of morality is not the only one in the universe, and based on your intolerance for differing opinions, not even close to being the "highest" or "best" moral stance.
I'm quite tolerant, but that does not equal acceptance. Those that do not want to be bound by a moral compass are free to think that way.
But, it's like believing that 2+2=5. You can believe it, but that doesn't make it so. Again, I would urge you to study the writings of the Founding Fathers, and more recently Milton Friedman, who write correctly and eloquently on the link between freedom/liberty and morality.
For the same reason infidelity is wrong. For the same reason cheating is wrong. For the same reason that kicking your dog is wrong. For the reason being a con artist is wrong. For the same reason any number of moral hazards are wrong.
But, if you actually need to ask that question, no amount of explanation will enable you to understand.
And This
Again, if you as a thinking adult don't understand what's morally wrong about prostitution, I don't know where to start.
A properly functioning society MUST have a moral compass to survive. We, as thinking adults know what is moral/immoral. We know that infidelity is immoral. We know that giving drugs to an addict is morally wrong. We know that cheating is immoral.
And This
No thanks. To borrow a quote:
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
And this
The profound irony is that you reject the morality of Judeo-Christian principles which make the freedom/liberty you and I both cherish possible.
It's exactly that rejection of common knowledge that dooms us to repeat history. Unfortunately, people like you fail to learn from it.
And this
If you need to ask what's morally wrong about prostitution, I'm not sure where to even start explaining it.
And This
If I reference the acceleration of gravity, I take for granted that the person with whom I'm speaking knows it's 32ft/sec/sec.
Likewise, I expect seemingly intelligent people on this forum to have a baseline of knowledge of America's founding principles and the foundational principles of Western Civilization. I have neither time nor inclination to provide you a free history lesson.
That said, you really should become knowledgeable if you're going to debate this topic, as currently your assumptions about both are completely wrong. That wouldn't really matter if it was just you, but far many people have an equally uninformed knowledge base.
Loss of morality walks hand in hand with loss of freedom/liberty, which is something we all hold dear.
All you do in every thread is make assertions of faith and emotion rather than reason. You then insult everyone here that disagrees with you.
You are a troll.
You rev up your righteous indignation in a failing attempt to win people to your point of view, and all you manage to achieve is to alienation.
The only armies that marched through there were the allied forces and imperial Japanese forces in WW2.
What messed their lifestyles up was western goods and culture. Look up the cargo cult.
Not believing a=a doesn't change reality.
The Devine irony is that those with your perspective chastise the very fundamentals that provide the freedom that we all cherish. As long as there are more that think as I do (which there are), those that think like you can continue to be wrong without consequences. The reverse is not true, though. Like Jews/Muslims laying down arms... one equals peace and one equals extermination.
If you can't post without insulting people DON"T POST
PS. Divine is spelled with two Is,
You are being chastised, at least on my part, for poor behavior. You are rude and prefer insults to cogent arguments. You wear the troll face.
Further, since you know virtually nothing about anyone on this forum you are making judgments without any facts to speak of.
Define who is personally harmed.
This is a basic value for value proposition...between two consenting individuals voluntarily entering into a contract time and service for money which is the tool by which value is determined.
WHOS Morality from what source, and what paradigm?
Immoral can also simply be something illegal. Prostitution is legal in Nevada hence not immoral by those who tax it, or pay for it.
So who's morality and from what source do you say wrong and immoral?
You may be more appropriate to state, "In YOUR opinion and based on your personal morals you believe it is wrong and immoral, therefore YOU would never participate, however others who do not share are certainly free to engage in what they choose as long as they are not "harming another" or forcing someone against their will to perform acts for money."
To deny this is to take adherence to Objectivism to an absurd level. The long-term effect of this would be the destruction of Western Civilization. Freedom and liberty require morality, as the Founding Fathers stated/wrote extensively.
Western Civilization is based on Judeo-Christian principles. I highly recommend you read writings of Founding Fathers(and Milton Friedman for that matter) to save me time explaining and so you can absorb first hand.
The freedom you cherish can not exist in an immoral society, period.
Muslims in Israel have greater rights that they do in any muslim country. Judeo-Christian founding principles (and morality found therein) are the foundational basis for freedom/liberty-- that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We don't play the my god is better than your god game in here.
(All men aren't created equal either...that was an unfortunate string of words).
I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because I EXIST.
You have some reading to do.
If they exist simply because a person exists, why do all people not have freedom and liberty? Why is it that you can pick virtually any spot on the globe and for the overwhelming majority of time that people have lived there throughout human existence, they did not have freedom, liberty, or property rights?
Nor do they have anyone to teach them how to think instead of always hearing from others, this is what you're supposed to do because god says so.
Tautological arguments are tautological.
Next WHAT specific moral code or "compass" are you using that dictates that? Are you using a universally accepted "Moral Code?" If so which one SPECIFICALLY.
Next you claim that Prostitution is Immoral by the standard of the West, again implying all of it, yest even the Huffington (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03...) post indicates that Prostitution flourishes all across the United States, and many, many other countries accept prostitution as normal and ok, making your argument again false.
You in the latter part of your statement talk about Liberty requiring morality, but again Who's morality, from what source SPECIFICALLY.
Moral, Legal and Ethical are not all mutually inclusive. Especially when Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Hitler believed he was completely moral in his endevour to exterminate the Jews.
Objectivism is not at all complicated and is based on "Rational Self-Interest."
Western Civilization, and the founding of America, is based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Limited Government and freedom to do what YOU want provided you do no harm to Others.
Consider the Declaration of Independence.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I do not recall them making a prohibition on the Oldest Profession.
If getting a hooker makes you happy, you have done what they intended. In fact the founding fathers participated in sex all over the place, especially Benjamin Franklin when he was in France.
No matter you have diverted the discussion WAY away from a man killing a Lion which he did legally, took the head as a trophy, gave the villagers the meat for food. Get over it.
I highly recommend you study both before again making such an factually inaccurate argument.
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to M. D'Ivernois, 1795.
"The equal rights of man and the happiness of every individual are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Coray, 1823."Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society, and this is all the laws should enforce on him." --Thomas Jefferson to F. Gilmer, 1816."The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1816.
Jefferson was VERY clear that an individuals rights are paramount. An individuals rights, are those HE individually sees fit to pursue provided he does not affect the natural rights of another.
Prostitution does not now or EVER force on either party something they do not consent to, meaning that BOTH parties are exercising their individual liberties.
Perhaps YOU are the one who needs to study since you have yet to provide ANY substance to support your completely erroneous arguments, while at the same time you obfuscate the issue.
AmericanGreatness I think you are being described.
https://video-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvi...
Fixed the bad link
Likewise, I expect seemingly intelligent people on this forum to have a baseline of knowledge of America's founding principles and the foundational principles of Western Civilization. I have neither time nor inclination to provide you a free history lesson.
That said, you really should become knowledgeable if you're going to debate this topic, as currently your assumptions about both are completely wrong. That wouldn't really matter if it was just you, but far many people have an equally uninformed knowledge base.
Loss of morality walks hand in hand with loss of freedom/liberty, which is something we all hold dear.
The simple fact is you have not demonstrated any ability to form a logical presentation of your statements so as to convince anyone of anything, other than your ability to present yourself as an ideologue with no ability to explain your statements, which by the way are from actual founding father's writing that in fact YOU prove are wrong and are the one who needs a lesson in history and fact.
It's an undeniable fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. At the founding, more than half of the colonies had state funded churches. You might as well be challenging an essertion that there were 13 colonies or that Washington was the first president.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is not for me to remedy.
In the 1600's The United States did NOT exist, they were still offshoots of the European Crown and were colonies of the King, and the King dictated the church and also caved to the will of the Church.
The United as founded in the late 1700's, and the United States did not become a country until then.
You seem to like to combine and modify history to suit your weird ideas. The Constitution which was the founding and primary contract for the United States when they CEASED being colonies under the rules of the King, CEASED control of Religion and morality. Please refer to the 1st Amendment AND the specific 10 Government enumerated powers. NONE of which has anything to do with morality.
Next please refer tot he letter Jefferson sent to the Church of Danbury. WAKE up and stop trying to obfuscate and combine topics in a poor attempt to confuse.
The First Amendment was written specifically to say Congress shall make no law. Writings by the Founding Fathers confirm this was done to prevent a federal church, not at the state level. In fact, they assumed states would likely continue to have state religions and that would be left to the states (see the 10th Amendment).
However. You again are an epic fail, because of the 13 states at the time, even though they may have supported a "state church" each of the 13 states individual constitution NEVER legislated morality, and ONLY in the Statutes may or may not have addressed prostitution but ONLY in terms of legality not morality.
But yet again this has NOTHING at all to do with the topic at hand, which was the Lion...the guy was legal, had every right to kill it, he did, ts trophy gave the meat to the villagers, and all is good.
It's 32ft/(sec squared) at sea level. You might want to do a little study of some things not in the bible if you want to carry on an intelligent conversation.
Inquisition
Witch trials
Magna Carta
Snake worship
David Karesh
Ruby Ridge
Jim Jones-Jonestown
Crusades
Jesus-Crucifixion
Prohibition
Mormon Persecution
Mormon Saints on gentiles
etc, etc, etc.
David Karesh and Ruby Ridge are examples of government tyranny... do your homework, man.
You should really use the previous resource of the internet to correctly educate yourself.
It means they don't have to have conversations with them or talk about how they feel when they're done.
Some of your Founders certainly took advantage of their services and kept mistresses.
The lack of historical knowledge asserted by some claiming expertise is staggering, and I expect more from those in this forum.
If I'm debated with false facts, and I'm going to call out the pseudo intellectual and rebut vigorously. If it results in people taking the time to actually look up facts and learn all the better, but they will likely recoil defensively and stay uninformed.
And your continued 'hi-jacking' of other's posts in order to proselytize your beliefs over reason continues to make me wonder why in the hell you continue on this site, other than to confuse the real issues being discussed or to simply troll. This post is about an idiot entertainer expressing an opinion about something he knows nothing about and has no experience in.
And, I did not hijack post (ironic as you're parachuting in with this comment). The post had to do with killing an animal purely for sport/trophy. In addition to all the other things it is, it's a moral issue, and that fact led to the expansion of the discussion. Much like a post about a single taker on welfare could lead to a larger discussion about the immorality of redistribution of income.
2. The Founders were profoundly Christian and founded America on Christian moral values.
3. Killing a lion has any whatsoever to do with human morality
4. Prostitution is a moral evil.
5. You think that your religious proselytization is of any import on a site for those interested in AR and Objectivism.
6. That Western Civilization is the only moral one.
7. Christianity is superior to Islam and different from Christianity.
8. Acceleration due to gravity is 32ft/sec/sec.
9. That I used a parachute. I waded in with 'stomping in the mud boots'.
10. That you have the intelligence to participate on this site.
It is obviously pointless to attempt a dialogue with you.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Am I unwittingly chatting with Pelosi???
Whether you like it or not, the moral compass of a society is directly linked to its freedom and liberty. Your failure to recognize this does not constitute a fail on anyone's part but your own.
Also you have REFUSED to very specifically tell anyone in your vague rhetoric WHAT THE SOURCE of your version of morality is.
What WRITTEN code where this morality is listed and detailed.
You have changed the subject, made just plain pathetic statements trying to support your view by just saying. YOUR WRONG< with NO evidence or proof at all.
So again for about the 5th time,
WHAT SOURCE? What written code, or "WHO" is your source for making these statement of morality?
Until you can clearly articulate your source, your are an epic fail because you are making comments and statements based on some blind ideology with zero substance.
If you don't even have that baseline of knowledge, I don't have time to impart decades of study/knowledge or centuries of writings. Your comment is quite an indictment of our education system.
The Germans marching into Russia and Poland. Neither one threatened Germany.
The Spanish invading and killing the Aztecs. To steal liver and gold with priests along for their souls.
The Americans marching and killing on the Natives. To get gold and to get land.
The Americans starting a war with Spain for a 'black flag' sinking of the USS Maine. To kick them out of American concerns.
The Americans starting a war with Vietnam for a 'black flag' attack on a US cruiser. Military/Industrial complex wanted money.
The British marching into and killings South Africans. To get gold and diamonds.
I'm pretty confident there's several more.
To paraphrase Reagan, it's not that you don't know anything, it's that everything you know is wrong.
If you don't mind spotlighting your ignorance of the subject, please continue, but you're lack of historical knowledge is embarrassing.
I think Kimmel's erection comment is probably right on in this case. As well as being good stand up comedy.
Very easy to just blank out and ignore all recent animal cognition research and choose instead to continue to believe the meat machine myth. Hey, they're just "dumb animals". So what's the big deal?
Just pause for a moment and contemplate the 40 hours between being wounded, then pursued, and finally killed - from the lion's perspective. Then think about the mental state of one who would intentionally and even gleefully bring this about.
2. FYI, Objectivist ethics apply to any and all rational self aware beings. AR was not referring to featherless bipeds in her use of the term "man". Objectivism stands on it's merits as a philosophical system, on its conformance to reality. Or it falls. If its ethics/politics fails to apply to a thinking self aware entity that is not a member of the biological/genetic group of homo sapiens, it falls - or at least can no longer be considered universal.
3. all of which is largely beside the point. The end focus of Objectivism being to identify a reality conforming metaphysical and epistemological base from which to further identify the guiding principles for maximizing the individuals happiness & success in its life. The life of a rational, self aware, thinking and, yes, caring being.
I can't conceive of any way whatsoever that such psychologically self destructive behaviour as trophy hunting, i.e. the deliberate torture & consequent killing of another conscious being for sport (read "thrills"), can actually enhance any rational being's self esteem and thus its long term happiness. Lots of ways to enhance a social metaphysician's pseudo self esteem - envy shown by drinking buddies', etc. Consequently, I think the condemnation of such behaviour on this forum should be entirely appropriate. Though a further exploration of why, would be perhaps even more appropriate?
4. "Man over nature"?? Curious to know by what process you exclude humans from the universe?
Or do you actually mean "man over all the rest of nature"?? And if so, why? Before responding, please investigate at least some of the recent literature regarding emotion and cognition research being done regarding other species.
2. I fail to understand the meaning of your question ".....man not man?!?". Are we switching to Platonic Forms now?.
3. I would be interested to read your development on how having the capacity to reason leads to a state of "dominance". Maybe a bit of Spencerian social Darwinism raising its ugly head here? My understanding of AR's position is that a man's rational faculty, his mind, is his primary survival tool and learning how to use his mind and then the environment to best facilitate this - survival & successful living qua reasoning being being the goal. I fail to see how this necessarily implies "dominance". Rational & perhaps careful use thereof, yes, but dominance?
5. yes animals do count in this discussion. The point of my argument is not to raise animals to human intellectual level, but to question the use of Objectivism as allowing for or worse advocating trophy killing - see my point 4 above.
"all of which is largely beside the point. The end focus of Objectivism being to identify a reality conforming metaphysical and epistemological base from which to further identify the guiding principles for maximizing the individuals happiness & success in its life. The life of a rational, self aware, thinking and, yes, caring being. "
what is your take on fetus organ harvesting? just want to make sure you are consistent and get there is a hierachy and animals are under you.
In the mirror universe, Spock has a beard, Peter Keeting is a hero, Roark is a villain, and a reaction and approval of others is very important.
Evolutionist/Atheist:
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from an evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
We also have the "Food Chain" which is also a function of Nature, where on Land and given differing circumstances MAN is the top of the food chain.
MAN kills Lion, Takes head, give meat to villagers for food, All is right with the world "Get over it."
Christian/Creationist:
Genesis 9:3
New International Version
Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
New Living Translation
I have given them to you for food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables.
English Standard Version
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
MAN kills Lion, Takes head, give meat to villagers for food, All is right with the world "Get over it."
There ya go, Logic from both sides, so Man kills Lion, move on...