Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

German Hunter pays £39,000 to kill largest elephant in living memory watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    not really - we'd just b righting our wrongs and letting nature take its course. We shouldn't have killed off the species in the first place. How is righting one killing event (of predators) with another (deers) humane?
    So it's okay for animals to kill eachother, but not humans to kill other animals? (Humans are animals btw)

    You said animals are our equals, so you're essentially supporting murder.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    Just curiously, have you ever researched the effects of vegetation farms on climate etc?
    I have no idea what a vegetation farm is :/ so no?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I have no idea what a vegetation farm is :/ so no?
    a vegetable farm? it's where vegetables come from.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    Wouldn't you agree it'd be more productive to try and reintroduce the deers' natural predators rather than culling them?
    Of course, and that is something I fully support, however I'm pragmatic. I know it requires rewilding on a scale that will never happen, and the farming lobby is too strong for it to happen on a scale that would make any dent in the deer populations.

    Sometimes you have to be a pragmatist, you can't have everything you want all of the time. For those of us living in the real world we understand that sometimes you have to compromise your morals to protect the planet.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    a vegetable farm? it's where vegetables come from.
    What kind of vegetable farm?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    a vegetable farm? it's where vegetables come from.
    It said vegetation... Didn't know if was some strannge sort of farm that grew bushes or something.

    The impact of plant farms is irrelevant to the vegetarian sustainability argument because the vast majority of plants grown go to feeding animals for people to eat. Eat that plant yourself and you have to dedicate much less land to farming and can protect much more natural habitat.

    Of course all is not rosy in the plant growing world, but it's like when people say soy is bad so veganism is unsustainable - completeley overlooking the fact the vast majority of soy produced is fed to pigs not people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    What kind of vegetable farm?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    All kindza vegetables
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    It said vegetation... Didn't know if was some strannge sort of farm that grew bushes or something.

    The impact of plant farms is irrelevant to the vegetarian sustainability argument because the vast majority of plants grown go to feeding animals for people to eat. Eat that plant yourself and you have to dedicate much less land to farming and can protect much more natural habitat.

    Of course all is not rosy in the plant growing world, but it's like when people say soy is bad so veganism is unsustainable - completeley overlooking the fact the vast majority of soy produced is fed to pigs not people.
    Yeah, but lets say you guys win and the whole world now requires vegetables and fruit.

    Then what will the impact of that be?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I'm fairly immune to animal suffering unfortunateley as its something I've had to come to terms with very swiftly through my work, I'd be driven mad if I took that on board as a cause too

    Also as soon as things become emotive the evidence bbecomes heavily distorted on both sides and any sort of argument becomes fairly redundant beyond your own personal morals, which are pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things.

    It's more sensible to advocate for the facts.
    Hate to invoke Godwin's Law but it is that mindset that allows atrocities like a racial holocaust to happen or for a communist dictatorship to go on a great purge all sacrifice millions in a famine. Or like I said before, conservationists exterminate humans for environmental reasons. In both those cases the perpetrators think they are acting on 'science' even if we know that social Darwinism of that time period was pretty unscientific. But what if it was scientifically correct? What if different races of people are all in a mad survival of the fittest law over resources and land? Would a holocaust be scientifically justified then? What if Marxist-Leninist doctrine is correct? I mean you could easily use maths and rational reasoning to come to the conclusion that all the lives under you dictatorial rule are worthless compared to the utopia to be created in the future where the rest of humanity will live in a giant international commune until the Sun engulfs us.

    There are loads of questions science can not answer. Moral philosophy come into it and a lot of it is down to human gut feelings ultimately. It's better if those gut feelings are guided by facts sure, but facts on their own are meaningless. You think you are not guided by emotion but you are.

    The idea we need to conserve the planet and the ecosystem is based on human emotion. There is no reason why we have to do that. There is no reason why we should even care about whether biodiversity goes down. Humans are causing the global climate to change. That is not in itself bad. That's just organisms effecting the ecosystem they live in. You can argue we should do something about it just because the human race would suffer, btu that is based on human emotion to the propagation of the species we live and the need we feel to look out for otehr humans. It;s not based on science, it;s based off of human emotion and the desire to survive. Again, you could get humans that think planet earth and all the other creatures will be better off without people, so better go and kill them all. I;m sure you could make some scientific arguments to back up that hypothesis.

    Ultimately most of our scientific enlightenment thinking and discoveries point towards existential nihilism anyway so nothing matters. Why are you even doing anything? Who cares if deer in Scotland all starve to death

    Philosophy important Mkay? I can;t be written off as a wish washy humanities person since I have a physics degree
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Of course, and that is something I fully support, however I'm pragmatic. I know it requires rewilding on a scale that will never happen, and the farming lobby is too strong for it to happen on a scale that would make any dent in the deer populations.

    Sometimes you have to be a pragmatist, you can't have everything you want all of the time. For those of us living in the real world we understand that sometimes you have to compromise your morals to protect the planet.
    Can I have your thoughts on this please:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    Thank you! Now let's move onto ethics. What gives us the right to kill non-human animals without their permission? They don't farm and kill us on an industrial scale without our permission. Why are we doing this to them? They don't rape our women with random men's semen and kill their babies so they can drink our milk. Why do we do this to them? They don't kill us because we are destroying the planet. Why are we killing them on this pretence?

    This should be interesting...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Hate to invoke Godwin's Law but it is that mindset that allows atrocities like a racial holocaust to happen or for a communist dictatorship to go on a great purge all sacrifice millions in a famine. Or like I said before, conservationists exterminate humans for environmental reasons. In both those cases the perpetrators think they are acting on 'science' even if we know that social Darwinism of that time period was pretty unscientific. But what if it was scientifically correct? What if different races of people are all in a mad survival of the fittest law over resources and land? Would a holocaust be scientifically justified then? What if Marxist-Leninist doctrine is correct? I mean you could easily use maths and rational reasoning to come to the conclusion that all the lives under you dictatorial rule are worthless compared to the utopia to be created in the future where the rest of humanity will live in a giant international commune until the Sun engulfs us.

    There are loads of questions science can not answer. Moral philosophy come into it and a lot of it is down to human gut feelings ultimately. It's better if those gut feelings are guided by facts sure, but facts on their own are meaningless. You think you are not guided by emotion but you are.

    The idea we need to conserve the planet and the ecosystem is based on human emotion. There is no reason why we have to do that. There is no reason why we should even care about whether biodiversity goes down. Humans are causing the global climate to change. That is not in itself bad. That's just organisms effecting the ecosystem they live in. You can argue we should do something about it just because the human race would suffer, btu that is based on human emotion to the propagation of the species we live and the need we feel to look out for otehr humans. It;s not based on science, it;s based off of human emotion and the desire to survive. Again, you could get humans that think planet earth and all the other creatures will be better off without people, so better go and kill them all. I;m sure you could make some scientific arguments to back up that hypothesis.

    Ultimately most of our scientific enlightenment thinking and discoveries point towards existential nihilism anyway so nothing matters. Why are you even doing anything? Who cares if deer in Scotland all starve to death

    Philosophy important Mkay? I can;t be written off as a wish washy humanities person since I have a physics degree


    (Original post by redferry)
    Of course, and that is something I fully support, however I'm pragmatic. I know it requires rewilding on a scale that will never happen, and the farming lobby is too strong for it to happen on a scale that would make any dent in the deer populations.

    Sometimes you have to be a pragmatist, you can't have everything you want all of the time. For those of us living in the real world we understand that sometimes you have to compromise your morals to protect the planet.
    The animal holocaust kills 59 billion animals a year. Animal and the human holocaust are no different. A holocaust is a holocaust. How can you block it out? It pains me to think what happened to the jews in wwii is happening to animals every second of everyday.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Hate to invoke Godwin's Law but it is that mindset that allows atrocities like a racial holocaust to happen or for a communist dictatorship to go on a great purge all sacrifice millions in a famine. Or like I said before, conservationists exterminate humans for environmental reasons. In both those cases the perpetrators think they are acting on 'science' even if we know that social Darwinism of that time period was pretty unscientific. But what if it was scientifically correct? What if different races of people are all in a mad survival of the fittest law over resources and land? Would a holocaust be scientifically justified then? What if Marxist-Leninist doctrine is correct? I mean you could easily use maths and rational reasoning to come to the conclusion that all the lives under you dictatorial rule are worthless compared to the utopia to be created in the future where the rest of humanity will live in a giant international commune until the Sun engulfs us.

    There are loads of questions science can not answer. Moral philosophy come into it and a lot of it is down to human gut feelings ultimately. It's better if those gut feelings are guided by facts sure, but facts on their own are meaningless. You think you are not guided by emotion but you are.

    The idea we need to conserve the planet and the ecosystem is based on human emotion. There is no reason why we have to do that. There is no reason why we should even care about whether biodiversity goes down. Humans are causing the global climate to change. That is not in itself bad. That's just organisms effecting the ecosystem they live in. You can argue we should do something about it just because the human race would suffer, btu that is based on human emotion to the propagation of the species we live and the need we feel to look out for otehr humans. It;s not based on science, it;s based off of human emotion and the desire to survive. Again, you could get humans that think planet earth and all the other creatures will be better off without people, so better go and kill them all. I;m sure you could make some scientific arguments to back up that hypothesis.

    Ultimately most of our scientific enlightenment thinking and discoveries point towards existential nihilism anyway so nothing matters. Why are you even doing anything? Who cares if deer in Scotland all starve to death

    Philosophy important Mkay? I can;t be written off as a wish washy humanities person since I have a physics degree
    Of course, but in cases where scientific evidence is strong (as I would argue it is in this case) philosophy needs to take a back seat!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    The animal holocaust kills 59 billion animals a year. Animal and the human holocaust are no different. A holocaust is a holocaust. How can you block it out? It pains me to think what happened to the jews in wwii is happening to animals every second of everyday.
    Magic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    The animal holocaust kills 59 billion animals a year. Animal and the human holocaust are no different. A holocaust is a holocaust. How can you block it out? It pains me to think what happened to the jews in wwii is happening to animals every second of everyday.
    redferry

    As much as this guy is annoying you you can bring facts to support his views. Al Though I can also think of facts that discredit some of his views based on the ethical axioms he subscribes to.

    I mean there are actual scientists that say certain primates should be given rights similar to human rights... They use scientific reasoning.

    Point is, they are all these views are based on totally arbitrary foundations.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    Can I have your thoughts on this please:
    I've already clearly given my opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Magic.
    You are one sick lady - psychopathic even :eek:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    Yeah, but lets say you guys win and the whole world now requires vegetables and fruit.

    Then what will the impact of that be?
    More natural habitat and lower emissions
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I've already clearly given my opinion.
    So basically you have no defence to the forced impregnation of cows and killing of their babies so you can drink their milk? Glad we got that cleared up.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    redferry

    As much as this guy is annoying you you can bring facts to support his views. Al Though I can also think of facts that discredit some of his views based on the ethical axioms he subscribes to.

    I mean there are actual scientists that say certain primates should be given rights similar to human rights... They use scientific reasoning.

    Point is, they are all these views are based on totally arbitrary foundations.
    His views are based pureley on anthropomorpging animals in a way that I'd not at all supported by scientific evidence, so not really.

    Don't even get me started on primatologists and their totally unprofessionalism and disregard for scientific practice...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    More natural habitat and lower emissions
    Sort of depresses me thinking about a world with no meat...as bad as that sounds.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 20, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.