That's pretty shit. This prick has essentially doomed 25 lions with a single arrow. What a cnut.
Cecil the Lion
- Thread starter Livvie
- Start date
The thing is that attitudes change and what was acceptable when I was a kid in the 70's is and should sometimes be (or becoming) morally unacceptable now. Hunting is in this category. At the very least the way we kill animals for food should be another.
No he hasn't doomed anyone, he is a cnut though. It's not as straight forward it depends on the age, the number and strength of the females.
The saddest part of all is that now that Cecil is dead, the next lion in the hierarchy, Jericho, will most likely kill all Cecil’s cubs so that he can insert his own bloodline into the females,” the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force said.
“That’s how it works… it’s in the wild; it’s nature taking its course,” the head of the task force, Johnny Rodrigues, told the BBC.
I think the solution here is to get a orthodontist from Wisconsin to shoot Jericho.
I said it in one of my posts, we can't consider that he doomed them, for all we know Jericho could have fought Cecil. And it's only 6 cubs not 25. The thing is that Jericho will replace the 6 cubs, and the status quo will be restored. Now the dentist is still a cnut.
Would you consider killing sharks for a bowl of fin soup killing for fun? Where's the uproar?
Here's an article that was posted there.*
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-...lcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights
UPDATE 8/14/09: Michael Vick was released from prison in May, and on July 27, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conditionally reinstated Vick. The Philadelphia Eagles have given Vick a one-year deal with an option for a second year.
In a conversation yesterday, someone said to me, “how am I ever going to watch an Eagles game and see that guy without thinking about those dogs?” My response: “How can you enjoy an Eagles game while you’re eating a hamburger or a hot dog made from animals who had a life and death every bit as horrible and unnecessary as Vick’s dogs?”
He did not have an answer.
Here is a Daily News op-ed I wrote on the topic that ran on Aug. 22, 2007:
MICHAEL VICK has, according to his lawyer, agreed to plead guilty to federal dogfighting charges against him.
Over past weeks, there's been an enormous amount of coverage of the dog-fighting operation sponsored by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Vick, who, along with three other men, has been indicted on federal felony charges.
The details of the charges claim that Vick sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows have been filled with talking heads from the "humane community" condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick.
Please let me be very clear from the outset: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.
But I must say that the Vick case rather dramatically demonstrates what I call our "moral schizophrenia" about animals.
That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.
In this country alone, we kill more than 10 billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting.
There is no "need" for us to eat meat, dairy or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.
There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products.
There is something bizarre about Reebok and Nike, which use leather in their shoes, suspending products endorsed by Vick. They're not going to allow a guy who allegedly tortures dogs to endorse products that contain tortured cows.
In one of my books about animal ethics, I introduced a character named Simon the Sadist, who derived pleasure from blowtorching dogs. We would all regard such conduct as monstrous because we all agree that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on animals - and pleasure, amusement and convenience cannot count as satisfying the "necessity" requirement.
But then I asked the further question: How are those of us who eat animal flesh and animal products any different from Simon? He enjoys blowtorching dogs - we enjoy the taste of flesh and animal products. But we and Simon both kill sentient beings (although we may pay others to do the dirty work) because we derive enjoyment from it.
According to reports, authorities removed from Vick's property a "rape stand" used to hold dogs for mating. "Rape racks" are used to hold cows for impregnation. When a dog is involved, we are troubled - when a cow is involved, we ignore it.
Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It's strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former. How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?
We are all Simon.
We are all Michael Vick. *
Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. His latest book on animal ethics, "Animals as Persons," will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
In a conversation yesterday, someone said to me, “how am I ever going to watch an Eagles game and see that guy without thinking about those dogs?” My response: “How can you enjoy an Eagles game while you’re eating a hamburger or a hot dog made from animals who had a life and death every bit as horrible and unnecessary as Vick’s dogs?”
He did not have an answer.
Here is a Daily News op-ed I wrote on the topic that ran on Aug. 22, 2007:
MICHAEL VICK has, according to his lawyer, agreed to plead guilty to federal dogfighting charges against him.
Over past weeks, there's been an enormous amount of coverage of the dog-fighting operation sponsored by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Vick, who, along with three other men, has been indicted on federal felony charges.
The details of the charges claim that Vick sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows have been filled with talking heads from the "humane community" condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick.
Please let me be very clear from the outset: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.
But I must say that the Vick case rather dramatically demonstrates what I call our "moral schizophrenia" about animals.
That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.
In this country alone, we kill more than 10 billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting.
There is no "need" for us to eat meat, dairy or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.
There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products.
There is something bizarre about Reebok and Nike, which use leather in their shoes, suspending products endorsed by Vick. They're not going to allow a guy who allegedly tortures dogs to endorse products that contain tortured cows.
In one of my books about animal ethics, I introduced a character named Simon the Sadist, who derived pleasure from blowtorching dogs. We would all regard such conduct as monstrous because we all agree that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on animals - and pleasure, amusement and convenience cannot count as satisfying the "necessity" requirement.
But then I asked the further question: How are those of us who eat animal flesh and animal products any different from Simon? He enjoys blowtorching dogs - we enjoy the taste of flesh and animal products. But we and Simon both kill sentient beings (although we may pay others to do the dirty work) because we derive enjoyment from it.
According to reports, authorities removed from Vick's property a "rape stand" used to hold dogs for mating. "Rape racks" are used to hold cows for impregnation. When a dog is involved, we are troubled - when a cow is involved, we ignore it.
Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It's strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former. How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?
We are all Simon.
We are all Michael Vick. *
Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. His latest book on animal ethics, "Animals as Persons," will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
*Incidentally, not RAWK.
Also, please don't insult chickens by comparing them to a known racist
Couldn't agree more, never been a big fan of sea food and fish myself. Red meat is where it's at.
Deserves all what it's coming his way.
Totally different. Eating is as much essential as it is a pleasure. I can understand where the claims of hypocrisy come from, but as Cecil wasn't eaten, it can't really be compared. He was a trophy, that's all. Complete unnecessary.
Are you on a different planet to everyone else or just argumentative for the sake of it? There's plenty of uproar about that too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ws-passengers-bring-personal-consumption.html
He shouldn't worry. Even after hunting the friendliest lion in Africa and then proceeding to skin and behead it, the NRA will be supporting him.
If you ever enter the Isreal-Palestine thread, you'll see the levels he goes to just for the sake of argument.
Cecil and Jericho are shitty names for lions.
It should be mandatory to give African names to lions.
That falls into the killing an endangered animal, cutting off its fin and leaving the rest to rot category. So yes, still a cnut, same as killing elephants or rhinos for their ivory.
Definitely argumentative for the sake of it.
I loved the post - he killed the cat FFS...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Pretty sure there's been an uproar for this. Gordon Ramsey did a pretty good documentary on it a couple years ago.
No one said that.
How dare people be outraged at a news item if they're not vegans campaigning for equal rights for all Gods creatures.
What a facile argument.
I suppose people shouldn't be upset about the Chinese woman falling into the escalator unless they've been campaigning vigorously for blanket Health & Safety standards in shopping centres across the Peoples Republic of China.
What a facile argument.
I suppose people shouldn't be upset about the Chinese woman falling into the escalator unless they've been campaigning vigorously for blanket Health & Safety standards in shopping centres across the Peoples Republic of China.
Has anyone said that?
I hope the other staff members in his dentist surgery find other jobs within their field and don't have to suffer as a result of his cowardice and selfishness.
As for Walter himself, there aren't words to describe how disgusting and vile he is, and he deserves everything that's coming his way.
Except you know, someone killing him or hurting family members or anything extreme like that.
As for Walter himself, there aren't words to describe how disgusting and vile he is, and he deserves everything that's coming his way.
Except you know, someone killing him or hurting family members or anything extreme like that.
This is spot on, Wibbs.
That's not as bad. He's hunting a prey animal that has relatively strong numbers. Hunting a predator isn't right, unless you have some justification for doing it, like protecting livestock or people.
Utter scumbag.
I'll never understand the hardon people get for hunting and murdering living things. In fact, "hardon" is probably the wrong choice of word given the fact it's almost certainly done to compensate for the inability to achieve one.
Weirdo's.
I'll never understand the hardon people get for hunting and murdering living things. In fact, "hardon" is probably the wrong choice of word given the fact it's almost certainly done to compensate for the inability to achieve one.
Weirdo's.
I tried not to get drawn into this argument, but here goes...
I'm a vegan, and neither me nor others I know believe in 'equal' rights for all 'God's creatures'.
We believe that sentient living beings shouldn't be unnecessarily killed.
What's facile and flat-out wrong is your comparison. The outrage of meat-eaters about this pathetic hunter should be compared to the outrage of people going around destroying escalators and world over and then protesting when someone they like is killed by a broken escalator. Almost everyone in that escalator story is an innocent bystander, meat-eaters are not innocent bystanders to mass slaughter, they're the cause of it. Their outrage is good in isolation and especially if it leads to some action being done about canned hunts, but it is simultaneously hypocritical too.
(Also, the biggest philosopher for vegans is Peter Singer and he does not believe in animal rights. Also, since many vegans are atheists, you'd find very few using words like God's creatures. So make your caricatures a bit more accurate.)
It's not as bad because it's legal for one. It's all completely pointless though and a bit weird. I've grown up around hunters and they all wax lyrical about the magnificence of the beasts they slaughter and then have poorly mounted. They're also generally paranoid as feck. Pack of weirdos generally.
TBH, I didn't think it through as extensively as you clearly have.
Just winds me up when the usual devils advocate gimps come into a thread with the obvious intention of derailing it. People have every right to be outraged at this 'news story' whether they eat meat or not (for very obvious reasons).
Yeah, that mounting of heads shit is weird. But I'm fine with hunting as long as the primary purpose is eating the meat.
For me, I don't like the idea of hunting for sport. However, if it's legal somewhere, then it's legal - that's something that requires legislation to be changed, which may or may not happen in other countries.
However, the galling thing this man has done (twice, it appears) is to kill animals which were either protected on a reserve or were outside of the area he'd was licensed to hunt within. He is perfectly happy to break the law to satisfy whatever urge he has to overpower large animals. I also particularly dislike the fact that he uses a bow and arrow or a crossbow. He couldn't even kill the lion cleanly and left the poor beast to suffer. That is the worst thing.
However, the galling thing this man has done (twice, it appears) is to kill animals which were either protected on a reserve or were outside of the area he'd was licensed to hunt within. He is perfectly happy to break the law to satisfy whatever urge he has to overpower large animals. I also particularly dislike the fact that he uses a bow and arrow or a crossbow. He couldn't even kill the lion cleanly and left the poor beast to suffer. That is the worst thing.
I think the outrage on about Cecil being poached is more related to the recreational murder of an iconic species that is nearing extinction. People have a problem with this idea of a wealthy individual flying halfway around the world, paying off locals, then proceeding to murder an African Lion for fun. I think one can delineate that from the Vegan argument of using animals as a food source. This is why imo, you don't see much outrage when local Africans kill chimps, gorillas and other nearby animals as a bushmeat food source, but you do see plenty of outrage when a wealthy dentist from main stream USA flies halfway around the world and does it for fun.
Its not hypocritical unless you take the moral stance you do about killing animals for food. Which obviously meat eaters don't.
You are perfectly happy to kill animals to have your modern lifestyle benefits like air travel, using motor cars and electricity etc,which is destroying their habitats and killing them just as certainly. You draw the line at raising them to kill them so you can eat them.
So cattle and pigs we should care about but polar bears not so much?
Last edited:
There are arguments for and against trophy hunting and its role in conservation.
Controlled hunting permits such as in this case raise money used for conservation, and last year the USA spent 11 million dollars in Namibia for controlled hunting. This money was used for wildlife management, employing gamekeepers to detect illegal poachers and also used in the local African community.
Trophy hunting is allowed for animals considered older, non breeding or animals whose numbers not endangered.
Some think a disproportionate amount of media attention has been focused on this case but countries that allow this trophy hunting have to ensure initiatives are sustainable.
If we like it or not, controlled hunting permits are preferable to the illegal poaching of animals that is rife in many African countries, where no one benefits least of all the animal.
Controlled hunting permits such as in this case raise money used for conservation, and last year the USA spent 11 million dollars in Namibia for controlled hunting. This money was used for wildlife management, employing gamekeepers to detect illegal poachers and also used in the local African community.
Trophy hunting is allowed for animals considered older, non breeding or animals whose numbers not endangered.
Some think a disproportionate amount of media attention has been focused on this case but countries that allow this trophy hunting have to ensure initiatives are sustainable.
If we like it or not, controlled hunting permits are preferable to the illegal poaching of animals that is rife in many African countries, where no one benefits least of all the animal.
I agree that on the surface it's more disgusting and would produce a more visceral reaction. From a utilitarian point of view however, the only extra harm done is that he murdered the lion, went home, and then presumably ate meat from a different animal. If he had eaten the lion, in a utilitarian way, there isn't much to separate him IMO.
Of course I accept that no one, not even Peter Singer and definitely not me, can always look at an event dispassionately and come to a rational decision all the time, especially when it's something that's so openly disgusting.
Didn't we have this out in the meat thread where I ended up trying to estimate roadkill per human per year?
Anyway, animal agriculture is the no.1 cause of climate change. More than the airplanes I'm apparently always flying in.
So you should change that to, cattle and pigs you should care about so you show you care about polar bears too
The philosopher Peter Singer draws the line somewhere between prawns and oysters. You can decide where Gerrard and co. fall there
Last edited:
I just don't get it. Spending that money just to shoot animals. Really?
What do you get from it? You just lure animals and shoot them with your guns. Not like you beat them up with your own two hands. So I don't get how anybody could take pride in doing that.
What do you get from it? You just lure animals and shoot them with your guns. Not like you beat them up with your own two hands. So I don't get how anybody could take pride in doing that.
One can also argue that horticulture is causing massive, sustained droughts across the globe, exacerbating the effects of climate change.Anyway, animal agriculture is the no.1 cause of climate change. More than the airplanes I'm apparently always flying in.
So you should change that to, cattle and pigs you should care about so you show you care about polar bears too.
But this is neither the time, nor place for such discussion.