Its an important topic that warrants more discussion, which this particular incident has generated. Most of the people criticizing this guy probably never thought about this issue and are just getting caught up in the herd behavioral outrage that social media tends to gin up.
Cecil the Lion
- Thread starter Livvie
- Start date
I'm not in/from the developed world
I'm all for giving up 4x4s. It would be (more) useful to also cut meat if we're serious about global warming.
The agricultural/forest/industrial land debate is hot in India, but I think it would be derailing the thread a bit too much...Briefly I think that with climate change more likely to affect large parts of India and more likely to cause devastation here than in the west, we must not destroy forests for our own sake...but by itself it's a meaningless act till the West also joins in. Cutting our forests because others did it before is cutting our nose to spite our face. IMO. Interview by our ex-environment minister, easily our most activist minister ever in that post.
EDIT: You didn't deny being an accessory to murder
Last edited:
Yeah pretty much I got to school here. Despite his practice being in the suburbs, he frequents my University. I'm not sure if I can do anything but I'm sure there will be protests and officials will be urged to take action against him.
The fundamental difference is that industrial farming sustains species whilst this type of trophy hunting only serves to help exterminate one.
I agree with this post to be honest.
For me personally, I try and avoid any sort of animal cruelty, like when things are posted on facebook, I tent to scroll passed it quickly so I don't have to read about it. Not because I don't care, but more that it is one of them things that does upset me.
The thing about this Cecil incident is that it cannot be avoided, it is everywhere, so me, and others like me are seeing and reading about it.
In todays age, things like this just shouldn't happen. I don't know how anybody can feel proud of this to be honest.
I can understand the whole survival aspect, but this is for 'fun' and is an absolute joke.
Although I am not a fan of his, Ricky Gervais is massively against this stuff and frequently calls people out on it, so I definitely respect him for that
What annoys me most about people like Palmer is the way they triumphantly pose for photographs as they stand over their kills, as if they are Roman gladiators who have just defeated a rabid beast with their bare hands in front of the colosseum. It's absolutely pathetic. Nobody is impressed by the feat of chasing down an animal in a 4x4 and using a gun to kill it from a distance.
Just look at the smug look on their faces as they pose with their weapon in shot, just to let everyone know that they killed the lion. And to think that then comes the skinning and beheading for the purpose of a trophy and a nice rug or whatever they hell they want to make out of it...it's fecking sick.
Just look at the smug look on their faces as they pose with their weapon in shot, just to let everyone know that they killed the lion. And to think that then comes the skinning and beheading for the purpose of a trophy and a nice rug or whatever they hell they want to make out of it...it's fecking sick.
It sustains species in the most perverse meaning of that word.
I have 2 questions:
a. If the events of the Matrix ever happen, will you be happy that humans are being sustained as a species by the machines?
b. Do you think the individual chicken or pig or cow will be comforted by this bit of moralizing? Does it matter to them whether large numbers of their species also exist (in similar conditions and doomed to similar imminent doom)?
Yeah, I still don't care about his "sad" situation. Shame for his family though to have got stuck with his issues.
You could argue the case for ecological advantages with animals like wolves or possibly deer (not sure how, but there's so many of them people don't care as much) - but for animals like beautiful lions that are well sought after by poachers it's plain wrong. In 100 years or so the world won't have lions or tigers or elephants or rhinos just because cnuts now want to show off or make a bit of money.
At this rate, its quite likely Lions will go nearly extinct within our lifetimes.
a. Not bothered.
b. If you subscribe to the gene centred view of evolution (I do) then the propagation of genes is the fundamental reason for our and all animals existence.
Animals don't have an opinion on the matter, they are not capable of even basic philosophical concepts. I wasn't moralising either.
More ethical farming practices would be better obviously and the size of the human population and resulting scale of farming could be a legitimate reason to stop eating meat but I don't believe that there is anything inherently morally wrong with eating meat. I don't consume too much myself but enjoy a lot of fish.
It is possible in 20 years according to that Lion expert from the BBC.
Seems to be a moo point to me.
Just saw this on the Norwegian news, what a prick. I'm glad his business is going under.
I feel for those customers of his with toothache. He's closed his practice for a few days.
a. Surely you see the very exact parallel?
b. Darwin onwards, evolution has been understood to be natural selection, what we have done and continue to do with both plants and in particular livestock would not come under that. These genes that are being successfully passed on in modern chickens/turkeys etc. wouldn't let them survive and compete in the wild beyond a few years (for example modern chickens routinely collapse under their own weight within 2 months)
Also, you say our purpose is to pass on genes..you're ascribing a purpose to a natural process. You're also condemning childless humans as purposeless when in fact as you yourself said population decline will be necessary to preserve the environment.
It's sad for the lion.
Emotions run high and there will always be people who make death threats, generally just vitriol. Most of the people probably aren't disgusting at all - just angry and expressing it in an unfortunate way. If it worries Dr Palmer, then tough - he might get an idea of how his victims feel. I have no sympathy for him at all, though I wish him a long life - one full of remorse and guilt, and nightmares.
This is the kind of moron who supports hunting....see how insulting he is to people who are criticising Palmer. Calling them stupid - saying it's all a lie. What a complete tosser.
https://www.facebook.com/tednugent/posts/10153106356577297?comment_id=10153106371542297&reply_comment_id=10153106385567297&total_comments=104&comment_tracking={"tn":"R9"}
So you know Palmer? I won't even ask if he's a nice guy, because nice guys don't kill for fun.
Last edited:
Awful for his family, but zero sympathy for the man. Scum. Glad someone has emerged to be made an example of, particularly someone as vile as this.
What makes it worse is he claims he is a legal trophy hunter without realizing that many people find that reprehensible in the first place.
I don't really find a film to be pertinent parallel in such a debate. But when I said I wasn't bothered I meant that it is not something I fear or care about, hypothetically speaking.
Exactly though, cattle is ill equipped to survive without being part of the industrial food chain or by being some sort of hobby breeding endeavour for a human. To stop eating cattle would condemn it to extinction most likely. That might satisfy your moral needs but I don't think the cattle would be too pleased about it if they were able to communicate. What exactly is your vision for cattle beyond it's highly successful evolutionary trade off with humans by being part of our food chain?
But yes, evolutionary biology does ascribe a fundamental purpose to that natural process, Dawkins terms living beings as 'survival machines' for genes. Genes are considered the fundamental unit of evolution as they are the only biological entity that are stable in evolutionary time, you, for example, if you procreate, your children will only be half of your genetic makeup and those genetics will continue to be more and more diffuse with each generation, whereas genes can survive in exact copies for a hundred thousand years. The theory also suggests that our qualitatively different relationship with our blood relatives is founded in our common interest that is the propagation of our genes. Your siblings from the same parents are the only people in the world with who your share 100% of your DNA.
Humans have gone beyond those fundamentals philosophically and can find purpose beyond that, but why do you think so many people get so hung up on having children or why it is seen as almost obligatory in all human societies?
As a slight aside, let's say that people are outraged by the death of this Lion because big cats are so rare, large and beautiful that we ascribe a higher value on their life. You say 'what about killing cows they feel pain too'. Well what about that snail I stood on this morning by accident or those ants that I poison in my kitchen and what about the research that suggests that plants feel pain too. Where is it reasonable to draw a line philosopically?
I accept arguments that say eating meat is problematic for the environment but that is a case of volume. That said, I am yet to hear a convincing argument for the inherent immorality of eating meat, however. Not that I don't think it can't be a positive lifestyle choice.
Don't. He will have left a voicemail advising them of alternative options for treatment. Most large centres will have an emergency dental clinic that can take patients on short notice.
If he has any left, that is.
I'm not in/from the developed world
I'm all for giving up 4x4s. It would be (more) useful to also cut meat if we're serious about global warming.
The agricultural/forest/industrial land debate is hot in India, but I think it would be derailing the thread a bit too much...Briefly I think that with climate change more likely to affect large parts of India and more likely to cause devastation here than in the west, we must not destroy forests for our own sake...but by itself it's a meaningless act till the West also joins in. Cutting our forests because others did it before is cutting our nose to spite our face. IMO. Interview by our ex-environment minister, easily our most activist minister ever in that post.
EDIT: You didn't deny being an accessory to murder
So animals are sentient beings and killing them to eat is wrong because we no longer need the protein and can live without it.
People who kill animals for meat are murderers because we could survive without doing so.
It has to follow then that anything we do which kills sentient animals which is unnecessary for our survival makes us murderers because it is presumably not ending their sentient existence which is the moral imperative.
This I think is the crux of your argument.
You are not talking about reducing or avoiding you make the claim in stark terms, if we take these lives then we are immoral because we do not need to. It does not matter the pleasure we derive from the taking of the life whether that is the thrill of the hunt or the taste of the beef.
I don't agree with your view on where sentience starts but it has to follow then that taking your position means that developing economies are trying to match from your view point the immorality of developed countries as they seek to destroy sentient beings in the bid to modernise. You might not kill and eat the animal but every time you turn on an electrical appliance or post on the internet you kill sentient beings which you didn't need to kill.
In this context, you are a mass murderer arguing your moral superiority based on a shorter victim list and that you killed them from distance rather than getting your hands around their throats.
1, You think its OK to kill the lion as long as poor people get the money?
2, There is no flip side if you use more fossil fuels to run your life today than the people you seek to limit.
3, If the developing world matches our most optimistic view of future developed economies land use, we are all fecked.
This is an interesting discussion. I think berbatricks view makes a lot of sense in that we should avoid causing the deaths of sentient beings when possible, it's just that I don't know how you can square that view with any modern way of life. Unless you live out your days as a hermit in a cave you will no doubt kill other sentient beings. I suppose you could try to carve out a distinction regarding food as opposed to driving a car which pollutes the environment or using a fly swatter on a mosquito but that seems pretty convoluted to me.
I can get behind the idea that vegetarianism is something that is attainable for most people and consistent with this worldview but when unless they approach is applied behind food sources it loses its moral imperative.
I can get behind the idea that vegetarianism is something that is attainable for most people and consistent with this worldview but when unless they approach is applied behind food sources it loses its moral imperative.
Hello. Would you tell him DN from India would spit in his face, if he had a chance to? Thanks
What is sad is that they lured out a gps tagged lion from a protected area at night, tried to kill it, left it in pain, went back the next day, killed it, tried removing its collar, then beheaded and skinned it. All of that is illegal. And this is not the first time he has done an illegal hunt
He is a vile person and deserves to be extradited and/or punished under the Lacey Act
Yeah i find it a bit of a cop out.
'I paid someone else to worry about that crap, blame them' seems to be his basic argument.
Passing the buck off to someone else for his crappy actions
and hiding behind 'i paid someone else to take the flak, its not fair!' kind of compounds my low opinion of him.
I find it hard to believe it was an honest mistake anyway.
Someone involved must have realised they were twisting the rules or they wouldn't have lured the lion out of his habitat.
Call me paranoid but i can imagine him getting a kick out of hunting that particular lion too.
Well killing a snail accidently is far different from deliberately seeking out snails to stamp (or eat). But I agree there is a line that we must draw somewhere. The problem is that for most humans it's less a line, more a random squiggle where we arbitrarily value some animals' lives more than others. Dogs, for instance, are almost sacred but yet we have no issues tucking into sausage rolls, when pigs have been proven to be a more intelligent/sentient animal.
Ok, let's say we accept the specious logic. Then by any moral standard, it's better to be an indirect murderer with fewer victims than a direct murderer with far more victims.
Also am I the only one uncomfortable with the way this has played out? As much of a cnut as this guy is, there are rapists and actual murderers out there who have generated less vitriol. It's medieval, mob justice.
laughing hard at the outrage, especially the social media shit storm. Meanwhile 300 animals are slaughtered every second in the USA alone. 300 animals that have lead a miserable existence, being force fed, unnatural feeds and hormones, Animals that are then inhumanly transported and slaughtered.
But not to worry lets conveniently forget these atrocities, and focus on one prick, who can not find anything more worthwhile to do with his money than travel half way across the world to shoot a lion.
I get the feeling as a species, we have run out of ideas, and have collectively thrown in the towel.
But not to worry lets conveniently forget these atrocities, and focus on one prick, who can not find anything more worthwhile to do with his money than travel half way across the world to shoot a lion.
I get the feeling as a species, we have run out of ideas, and have collectively thrown in the towel.
It's two different issues. Animals which are bred solely for human consumption have the right to enjoy good conditions in their lifetimes and a quick, humane death. That some don't have either is a disgrace and I completely agree with you that it should be better than it is. However, humans are omnivores and they will always eat meat, even if some people find that to be disgusting.
However, hunting non-food animals which are endangered and protected (in this case) will always enrage public sentiment. It's done for one person's own satisfaction, to make some guy (or woman) feel big and powerful and give them the thrill of the chase. I can't see many people wanting to display the heads of the chickens or cows they've tucked into over their lifetimes. And of course, big game hunting is a rich man's hobby, which will always irritate the general public.
That's a cop out for me. It's basically like saying "I will not try to be a good person because I know that I will sometimes mess up and do bad things."
The least one can do is try to do the first part of that sentence. For me, it involves not eating non vegetarian food and not going hunting for kicks.
No, it's not like that. It's like saying yeah, there are things we should try not to do that involve making sacrifices. Some people do some of them (driving hybrids) and some people do others (not eating meat). I get the argument for not doing them and I think people should try not to do them, I just don't see it as a major moral issue since even the people who make sacrifices in one area don't make them in others.
Like I said, you do what you can. My issue was the bit that said "a view that we should avoid killing salient beings when possible isn't feasible if you live in the modern world". Everyone should do whatever they can do. I do personally wish mankind could do without meat altogether, but I acknowledge that it is something so deeply ingrained in society and human behavior will not be removed.
How is it really too different issues? Its hypocritical to make the distinction. Ive seen people lose their minds at mistreatment of a dog, but will argue till they are irate, about 'their' right to eat cows, pigs etc.
When presented with footage from the slaughterhouse, they turn away and refuse to watch, only to salivate when describing their favourite steak, or the roast they had last sunday. What if the lion strolls close to a village and a local kills it? or the Chinese kill it, for use in medicine.
Ironically, most big hunting is controlled, (money being used to fund conservation) and the animals killed are generally old. But isn't this more about placing disproportionate affection onto one species over another, especially with species going extinct at the fastest rate in recorded history, but these species are rarely mention in mainstream media.
You misunderstand me. I think we can become vegetarians. It's not that hard. But if you apply the principle above to things not involving food, then it becomes practically impossible.
Fair enough. Like I said, I think one should do whatever they possibly can. And I don't think people do even that.
Also, could you provide a few examples?
I think we should too. I just think that in light of the fact that almost everything we do in the 21st century results in the deaths of animals, I am unable to see eating meat as the moral issue that stands above the rest.
Driving gas guzzling vehicles.
Driving any vehicles for that matter.
Chopping down trees to build houses.
Using a fly swatter.
The list can go on forever.
You can't see the difference between difference between using a fly swatter when a possibly infection carrying fly is persistently trying to sit on your food, and people going and hunting down animals so others can eat them when the body can do without ? To be honest I don't even use a fly swatter. I just swing my mightily scary fist and then fly away. Yeah.
When you add using pesticides on crops, destroying rain forest to create farm land, using electricity generated by fossil fuels it becomes pretty obvious that it is impossible as you say.
Yet people who hold this view on animals and are very strident about it will hop on a plane to take their vacation or on business trip to enrich themselves for example. Something which is clearly avoidable. Applying the principle selectively while calling out others who don't share their view for not accepting its legitimacy.
Nah. There's money in them. It's the animals that people won't pay large amounts to go and see that are fecked.
A tiny amount in captivity is scant consolation.
Depends on your definition of captivity, I guess. People will want to see them 'in the wild', so I'm sure they will continue to exist in reserves.