Canada Seal Slaughter begins

[Dustin Kesselberg]

1. Why attempt to anthropomorphize a lion with "cruel" to describe how it kills things? A lion kills its prey, and its dinner, in its own special way.

And another person uses the term "anthropomorphic" incorrectly.

Here's the dictionary definition of "cruel"...

1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant>
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency <cruel punishment>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=cruel

By definition, slowly killing a prey while it's suffering would be called "cruel".

However we can't fault lions for doing this because they are not intelligent enough to determine what is or isn't "cruel". Adult humans are. They can be faulted.

Be yourself. I lion knows that without being taught.

Tell that to this guy...

2. How do you know what is, or isn't, ethical among lions within a given pride? Lions do have observable groupings that could be termed social or tribal. Do you find it beyond consideration for a lion to behave ethically within a leonine context?

Lions do have ethical rules for in pack social behavior however as far as I know they don't try to avoid overtly causing suffering to their prey.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And another person uses the term "anthropomorphic" incorrectly.

No, you did just tripped over that problem, and you proved your own error by providing a humano-centric definition for cruel.

disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings

Disposed to: behavioral, connotes volition and choice. What choice does a lion have in its killing method?

How do you square any need to be humane in a lion? It is a human behavior, or ethic, chosen or unchosen.

By definition, slowly killing a prey while it's suffering would be called "cruel".

No, by definition, and understanding a definition, a human slowly killing prey while it's suffering is cruel. A lion is a lion.

What does he have to do with this conversation?​

Lions do have ethical rules for in pack social behavior however as far as I know they don't try to avoid overtly causing suffering to their prey.

Given that understanding, why did you bother with the rest of your post, which was self contradictory?

DR

ETA: had to edit, I buggered up the tags. Sorry.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Let me put it this way, If you are totally indiscriminate in the way you treat other thinking creatures then I'm going to be totally indiscriminate in the way I treat YOU.

But I'm not. I treat humans different from other creatures.

Are you claiming that seals think?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, you did just tripped over that problem, and you proved your own error by providing a humano-centric definition for cruel.

That's the English language definition of "cruel". That's how the word is used. There are no other definitions. Nowhere in the definition does it exclude treatment to other animals or among other animals.

Disposed to: behavioral, connotes volition and choice. What choice does a lion have in its killing method?

The lion could simply go for the throat and kill the prey as fast as possible and then precede to eat it.

How do you square any need to be humane in a lion? It is a human behavior, or ethic, chosen or unchosen.

I don't. That's the point. It doesn't apply to lions because they aren't as intelligent as humans.

No, by definition, and understanding a definition, a human slowly killing prey while it's suffering is cruel. A lion is a lion.

What reputable dictionary uses this definition?

What does he have to do with this conversation?

You said "be yourself". Bundy did that. Look what happened. If many people followed the philosophy of "being their self" no doubt many bad things would happen.
​

Given that understanding, why did you bother with the rest of your post, which was self contradictory?

How is it self contradictory? I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But I'm not. I treat humans different from other creatures.

Then indiscriminate in your treatment of non-human creatures?

Are you claiming that seals think?

Yes. I can post many scientific studies showing the intelligence and cognitive capacity of seals and other related species including sea lions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

[

Then indiscriminate in your treatment of non-human creatures?

Pretty much. I treat non-human animals based on how I feel about them.

Yes. I can post many scientific studies showing the intelligence and cognitive capacity of seals and other related species including sea lions.

Are you saying seals are thinking creatures? Obviously, they aren't thinking good enough not to be practice for golf swings. You'd think after years and years of this hunt, they'd figure out a good time to be somewhere else.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Pretty much. I treat non-human animals based on how I feel about them.

You don't treat humans the same way? Based on how you 'feel' about them?

Are you saying seals are thinking creatures? Obviously, they aren't thinking good enough not to be practice for golf swings. You'd think after years and years of this hunt, they'd figure out a good time to be somewhere else.

Seals are definitely "thinking creatures". Most animals are. The fact that they haven't learned to avoid being hunted simply means they aren't intelligent enough, don't have communication skills to do such, etc.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You don't treat humans the same way? Based on how you 'feel' about them?

Sure I do. But I'm rather detached from non-human animals, as I can't really relate to them. How do you treat animals, both human and non-human? It seems to me that you'd treat a dull person with less respect than a genius.

Seals are definitely "thinking creatures". Most animals are.

Perhaps you're confusing thought with instinct and conditioned behavior.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sure I do. But I'm rather detached from non-human animals, as I can't really relate to them.

Who would you treat better? Hitler or a random seal?

How do you treat animals, both human and non-human? It seems to me that you'd treat a dull person with less respect than a genius.

I would. I generally don't give dull people the time of the day. However in your case I'm making an exception.

Perhaps you're confusing thought with instinct and conditioned behavior.

No. I am distinctly aware of the difference between conscious thought and instinctive behavior. We've been through this in other threads which you seem to of quit posting in.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Who would you treat better? Hitler or a random seal?

Are you an agent of Godwin? Are you paid some fee everytime you work Hitler into an internet discussion?

Anyway, I'll answer your question. I'd treat Hitler better.

I would. I generally don't give dull people the time of the day. However in your case I'm making an exception.

So you wouldn't mind that I, as a genius, treat you like garbage? Oh wait, you reject any actual objective measure of intelligence, so that makes your position unfalsifiable.

No. I am distinctly aware of the difference between conscious thought and instinctive behavior. We've been through this in other threads which you seem to of quit posting in.

Yes, but you've simply failed to demonstrate the difference.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Anyway, I'll answer your question. I'd treat Hitler better.

Why would you treat a psychotic mass murderer better than a seal who hasn't done anything to you?

So you wouldn't mind that I, as a genius, treat you like garbage? Oh wait, you reject any actual objective measure of intelligence, so that makes your position unfalsifiable.

Firstly, I never said "like garbage". I don't support treating any thinking thing "like garbage". What I said was with less respect. Not "no respect". If you were a genius and I were a fool then I likely would not even recognize your right to treat me as such and the point would be moot. However as a person who is not a fool, I recognize your right if you were a genius to treat me with less respect if I were a fool than someone much smarter.

Secondly, It is true that I do reject most measures of intelligence used today (for humans generally) but I do not believe that it's impossible to measure intelligence with certainty. For instance reducing something like human intelligence into a number makes no sense. I do believe it's possible to measure intelligence roughly with humans and non-humans.

Yes, but you've simply failed to demonstrate the difference.

Instinct...

1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Link

Thought...

1 : to form or have in the mind
2 : to have as an intention <thought to return early>
3 a : to have as an opinion <think it's so> b : to regard as : [SIZE=-1]CONSIDER[/SIZE] <think the rule unfair>
4 a : to reflect on : [SIZE=-1]PONDER[/SIZE] <think the matter over> b : to determine by reflecting <think what to do next>
5 : to call to mind : [SIZE=-1]REMEMBER[/SIZE] <he never thinks to ask how we do>
6 : to devise by thinking -- usually used with up <thought up a plan to escape>
7 : to have as an expectation : [SIZE=-1]ANTICIPATE[/SIZE] <we didn't think we'd have any trouble>
8 a : to center one's thoughts on <talks and thinks business> b : to form a mental picture of
1 a : to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference : [SIZE=-1]REASON[/SIZE] b : to have in the mind or call to mind a thought
2 a : to have the mind engaged in reflection : [SIZE=-1]MEDITATE[/SIZE] b : to consider the suitability <thought of her for president>
3 : to have a view or opinion <thinks of himself as a poet>
4 : to have concern -- usually used with of <a man must think first of his family>
5 : to consider something likely : [SIZE=-1]SUSPECT[/SIZE] <may happen sooner than you think>

Link

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why would you treat a psychotic mass murderer better than a seal who hasn't done anything to you?

Because he's human. If you don't like that, I'll use YOUR line of reasoning. Because he's more intelligent.

Secondly, It is true that I do reject most measures of intelligence used today (for humans generally) but I do not believe that it's impossible to measure intelligence with certainty. For instance reducing something like human intelligence into a number makes no sense. I do believe it's possible to measure intelligence roughly with humans and non-humans.

You've contradicted yourself a couple times in this paragraph. But since you're not the genius I am, I won't even respect you enough to tell you how.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because he's human.

So?

If you don't like that, I'll use YOUR line of reasoning. Because he's more intelligent.

Yes, but does his intelligence make any difference in the light of his acts of atrocity? I say they do. I say that the amount of pain and suffering Hitler inflicted negates many rights he had to be treated well and should [of] be[en] immediately imprisoned. However should we immediately kill, torture or even imprison a seal when it has done nothing and we gain nothing from doing such? No. That's what I say.

What do you say?

You've contradicted yourself a couple times in this paragraph. But since you're not the genius I am, I won't even respect you enough to tell you how.

Looks like a copout if I've ever seen one. I can't spot any contradictions in it. Unless you can post them then I'll ignore your accusation.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, but does his intelligence make any difference in the light of his acts of atrocity? I say they do. I say that the amount of pain and suffering Hitler inflicted negates many rights he had to be treated well and should [of] be[en] immediately imprisoned. However should we immediately kill, torture or even imprison a seal when it has done nothing and we gain nothing from doing such? No. That's what I say.

Seals are guilty of "murder" according to your line of reasoning. They kill other animals all of the time. So, where is your morality consistent? You say it's based on intelligence, but now it seems that merit also plays a major factor.

Looks like a copout if I've ever seen one. I can't spot any contradictions in it. Unless you can post them then I'll ignore your accusation.

That's probably due to the fact that you're not a genius. You don't deserve the respect to be taught.

 

[Ziggurat]

1. Lions aren't omnivores. They must eat meat Moreover, lions aren't intelligent enough to make ethical decisions like quickly killing it's prey before eating it to prevent it's suffering. Humans do.

Screw the killing prey issue. Are you aware that adult male lions regularly kill lion cubs? It's not accidental either: it's deliberate and premeditated. They know exactly what they're doing when they do it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Seals are guilty of "murder" according to your line of reasoning. They kill other animals all of the time. So, where is your morality consistent? You say it's based on intelligence, but now it seems that merit also plays a major factor.

No, If you had been reading my posts here you would of seen the posts where I made it clear that animals with the intelligence of seals should not be punished for such habits because they aren't intelligent enough to discern what is right or wrong.

That's probably due to the fact that you're not a genius. You don't deserve the respect to be taught.

If you want to copout like that then be my guest...

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Screw the killing prey issue. Are you aware that adult male lions regularly kill lion cubs? It's not accidental either: it's deliberate and premeditated. They know exactly what they're doing when they do it.

I am aware of that, however you need to remember that it's unlikely they can grasp exactly what they are doing. They see "Cub" and think "Potential threat to power" and kill it. They don't think about it's right to be alive or any such thing and I doubt lions brains are developed enough to even have the potential to make such distinctions. Humans on the other hand do have the potential to make such distinctions and generally ignore them.

Let me also say that if able, wildlife experts should not hesitate in taking cubs away from parents if they see there is a potential that the male lion might kill them due to the vulnerability of the species to extinction.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, If you had been reading my posts here you would of seen the posts where I made it clear that animals with the intelligence of seals should not be punished for such habits because they aren't intelligent enough to discern what is right or wrong.

Do you think Hitler could discern what is right or wrong? I think that Hitler definitely believed what he did was right.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do you think Hitler could discern what is right or wrong? I think that Hitler definitely believed what he did was right.

I think it's likely Hitler knew what he was doing was immoral and made the conscious decision to ignore this and continue with it due to his absurd philosophical beliefs about how cleansing Europe of Jews and Czechs would benefit everyone else. Although I'm only guessing and can't say for sure what Hitler's feelings were or weren't.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think it's likely Hitler knew what he was doing was immoral and made the conscious decision to ignore this and continue with it due to his absurd philosophical beliefs about how cleansing Europe of Jews and Czechs would benefit everyone else. Although I'm only guessing and can't say for sure what Hitler's feelings were or weren't.

What if he weren't intelligent enough to realize that he was wrong?