The lion-killing dentist

[Bo Diddley]

What? Why in the hell is he catching and killing fish if he doesn't eat them? Sounds like an a-hole.

Well his family and others he's given them to like them.

[Katy Lied]

didnt Joseph Smith kill a snake the very next day? I think to assess the affect of his teaching?

[The_Tick]

I don't hunt...because I don't have the heart to kill.

I fly fish, but I am strictly catch and release. If for some reason I am unable to release it successfully I will keep it and eat it. But it makes me feel like shit.

I understand it may make me hypocritical because I will eat meat that has been provided by someone else. I just don't have the heart/stomach to do it myself.

[Omaha 680]

I have seen this story floating around and finally got around to reading the article JL posted. We are Cecil? Cat Lives Matter? People are so ridiculous.

[Moliere]

I find it interesting that there are some wild animals that are okay to kill and some that are not. Recently in our neighborhood FB page, someone posted about some ducks that frequently cross a semi-busy street. There were petitions to put in "duck crossing" signs and one person posted their desire to engineer and install (but obvioulsy not fund) a duck crossing tunnel under the street. One person made a snide remark that we shouldn't worry about the ducks as it messes up traffic, plus there are hundreds more around anyway. That guy got lambasted in the comments.

Then a week later, someone posted a picture of a snake that was on her driveway. She was wondering what type it was. Turns out it was a harmless, little brown snake...in fact you could say it was more useful than a duck because the brown snake eats rodents. Well, the most popular post, by many of the same people that wanted to save the ducks was "the only good snake is a dead snake". The original poster of course made sure to point out that she had already killed it...to the online cheers of many. Nobody batted an eye.

So why the difference in how the two animals are treated? They are both harmless with the snake likely being more useful to keep more rodents away. Anyway, this whole Cecil thing reminded me of the juxtaposition of those two posts on my FB feed. Pretty funny.

FTR, I would have also killed the snake.

[Bo Diddley]

I find it interesting that there are some wild animals that are okay to kill and some that are not. Recently in our neighborhood FB page, someone posted about some ducks that frequently cross a semi-busy street. There were petitions to put in "duck crossing" signs and one person posted their desire to engineer and install (but obvioulsy not fund) a duck crossing tunnel under the street. One person made a snide remark that we shouldn't worry about the ducks as it messes up traffic, plus there are hundreds more around anyway. That guy got lambasted in the comments.

Then a week later, someone posted a picture of a snake that was on her driveway. She was wondering what type it was. Turns out it was a harmless, little brown snake...in fact you could say it was more useful than a duck because the brown snake eats rodents. Well, the most popular post, by many of the same people that wanted to save the ducks was "the only good snake is a dead snake". The original poster of course made sure to point out that she had already killed it...to the online cheers of many. Nobody batted an eye.

So why the difference in how the two animals are treated? They are both harmless with the snake likely being more useful to keep more rodents away. Anyway, this whole Cecil thing reminded me of the juxtaposition of those two posts on my FB feed. Pretty funny.

FTR, I would have also killed the snake.

You mean kill and eat them, right?

Poor rodents. They're even less loved than snakes.

[creekster]

I find it interesting that there are some wild animals that are okay to kill and some that are not. Recently in our neighborhood FB page, someone posted about some ducks that frequently cross a semi-busy street. There were petitions to put in "duck crossing" signs and one person posted their desire to engineer and install (but obvioulsy not fund) a duck crossing tunnel under the street. One person made a snide remark that we shouldn't worry about the ducks as it messes up traffic, plus there are hundreds more around anyway. That guy got lambasted in the comments.

Then a week later, someone posted a picture of a snake that was on her driveway. She was wondering what type it was. Turns out it was a harmless, little brown snake...in fact you could say it was more useful than a duck because the brown snake eats rodents. Well, the most popular post, by many of the same people that wanted to save the ducks was "the only good snake is a dead snake". The original poster of course made sure to point out that she had already killed it...to the online cheers of many. Nobody batted an eye.

So why the difference in how the two animals are treated? They are both harmless with the snake likely being more useful to keep more rodents away. Anyway, this whole Cecil thing reminded me of the juxtaposition of those two posts on my FB feed. Pretty funny.

FTR, I would have also killed the snake.

Becasue the snake is the devil. DOnt you know the story of adam and eve?

[Jeff Lebowski]

No matter what happens, the internet always wins.

[grapevine]

In the Lion King and Simbas humility do they ever show the lions eating anything? There is Lion King one half that makes mention of it. But everyone knows lions only eat other animals. Are not vegetarians. They left there meals out of Lion King, while making villains of hyenas.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A nice essay on the logical absurdity of conflating issues.

http://wordofawoman.com/2015/07/29/d...s-than-you-do/

It seems lately I am “not allowed” to care about anything without someone saying I care about the wrong thing or that I must also make it clear that I care about something else more.

I am not allowed to care about the death of Cecil the lion unless I have already made it clear that I care more about aborted babies or police brutality or the death penalty.

Some don’t want me to say that #blacklivesmatter unless I also say #alllivesmatter.

We are not supposed to celebrate Caitlyn Jenner’s courage because soldiers (or someone else) are more courageous.

Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

How is it that all of a sudden compassion, caring and courage have all become competitive sports? Something to be won at the expense of others? Has it come to this? Are all our best qualities now just another thing to use against one another? Is empathy about the “right” things, people and situations now just a way to say “I WIN!”. How sad.

[imanihonjin]

A nice essay on the logical absurdity of conflating issues.

http://wordofawoman.com/2015/07/29/d...s-than-you-do/

Logical absurdity? It isn't illogical or absurd to wonder why our society seems to prioritize some events over others. In a world where resources (including time) are finite we should ask ourselves these questions and wonder why we elevate some causes (Cecil the Lion) over others (some cop shooting a kid in the face because he didn't have a front license plate). In the end, you know as well as I do, if Cecil the Lion gets the coverage and outrage that is where change is going to most likely occur. Shouldn't we at least attempt to prioritize?

[Pelado]

Was this already linked:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/op...f=opinion&_r=1

So sorry about Cecil.

Did Cecil live near your place in Zimbabwe?

Cecil who? I wondered. When I turned on the news and discovered that the messages were about a lion killed by an American dentist, the village boy inside me instinctively cheered: One lion fewer to menace families like mine.

My excitement was doused when I realized that the lion killer was being painted as the villain. I faced the starkest cultural contradiction I’d experienced during my five years studying in the United States.

Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being “beloved” or a “local favorite” was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from “The Lion King”?

In my village in Zimbabwe, surrounded by wildlife conservation areas, no lion has ever been beloved, or granted an affectionate nickname. They are objects of terror.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Logical absurdity? It isn't illogical or absurd to wonder why our society seems to prioritize some events over others. In a world where resources (including time) are finite we should ask ourselves these questions and wonder why we elevate some causes (Cecil the Lion) over others (some cop shooting a kid in the face because he didn't have a front license plate). In the end, you know as well as I do, if Cecil the Lion gets the coverage and outrage that is where change is going to most likely occur. Shouldn't we at least attempt to prioritize?

Yes, it's a logical fallacy. As is your notion that there is some finite amount of outrage that we have to carefully ration.

[imanihonjin]

Yes, it's a logical fallacy. As is your notion that there is some finite amount of outrage that we have to carefully ration.

Nonsense. Of course their is a finite amount of outrage a person and thus a society is capable of, but that isn't really the point. The point being, the more we elevate outrage and the more attention the outrage gets, the more likely that the focus of that outrage is to be impacted. If nobody cares about smashing ants (and very few people do) then there is going to be little to no impact on a large scale on our behavior towards ants. If people are really so pissed about a lion, then changes will happen, as evidenced by this Cecil episode and by the fact that changes have already happened.

It is so blatantly obvious that the items we elevate both in quantity and volume are the items that have the most likelihood of changing that I find it strange that you would argue the point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nonsense. Of course their is a finite amount of outrage a person and thus a society is capable of, but that isn't really the point. The point being, the more we elevate outrage and the more attention the outrage gets, the more likely that the focus of that outrage is to be impacted. If nobody cares about smashing ants (and very few people do) then there is going to be little to no impact on a large scale on our behavior towards ants. If people are really so pissed about a lion, then changes will happen, as evidenced by this Cecil episode and by the fact that changes have already happened.

It is so blatantly obvious that the items we elevate both in quantity and volume are the items that have the most likelihood of changing that I find it strange that you would argue the point.

I am not sure how to break it down more simply. If you have a problem with issue X, go ahead and debate issue X based on the associated facts. But telling people they don't have a right to be upset about issue X until they show sufficient outrage (based your subjective analysis) at issue Y is just a dumb and intellectually lazy response.

But half of my FB feed agrees with you, so you have that going for you. Of course, they also believe that Obama is a muslim anti-christ...