The science and nature thread v. We tried this before

[rumborak]

Of course, and I totally agree with that this case already brought out some nasty stuff by some people, maybe even nastier than what the guy himself has done.
What I object to, and I may have perceived Stadler's point wrongly here, is that the public should not form an opinion at all here, but rather wait for some foreign court to be bribed enough (and let's be honest here, Zimbabwean courts: yeah, right) to make some judgment.

My take on what should happen is: If you go to Zimbabwe and kill a protected animal, you should face a Zimbabwean court. With probably all that entails. It's the same thing that happens when moron Westerners smuggle or consume drugs in Indonesia. You put yourself into grave danger by testing local law, and you might very well land in some rotten jail for 10 years.

[BlobVanDam]

Of course, and I totally agree with that this case already brought out some nasty stuff by some people, maybe even nastier than what the guy himself has done.
What I object to, and I may have perceived Stadler's point wrongly here, is that the public should not form an opinion at all here, but rather wait for some foreign court to be bribed enough (and let's be honest here, Zimbabwean courts: yeah, right) to make some judgment.

I think people should be discussing and forming opinions, and pushing for justice to be properly served, it's the point where opinions become actions where things get a bit more grey and murky for me. The public is not the jury, and opinions are not a legal verdict, even in cases like this where it may be more clear cut.

And by that, I'm not saying (and I don't think Stadler is saying it either) that the public can't or shouldn't make their own judgement, or sit on their asses and let the issue disappear assuming the legal system will do its job perfectly every time, but we should be striving for a civilized society where we use the power of numbers for good, not working outside of the law and dealing out punishment on our own.

And if the court gets it wrong in the public's opinion, people should continue to use social media and raise hell the right way, not send death threats or burn his house down.

[Stadler]

BTW, I am not a big fan of people posting those things in front of his practice either. And I absolutely abhor any kind of threats of violence. What I *do* think is fair game is to vent your disgust on a site that is meant for rating a public place like his dentist office. This is nothing like mobs bullying gay people, who have done nothing wrong to anybody. This man is killing endangered animals across the world.
I think asking the general public to somehow not react to his behavior, under some fake idea of "well, maybe some aliens abducted him while some imposter killed those animals; we'll have to wait until the Zimbabwean courts decide on it" is ludicrous.

What does his shooting a lion have to do with his skill in filling a cavity or his chair-side manner when checking after a cleaning? 

And you know full well I'm not saying the latter.  Your assertion that I am anywhere near that is "ludicrous".  What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.  That's the crux of my point, not "aliens". 

[Stadler]

Of course, and I totally agree with that this case already brought out some nasty stuff by some people, maybe even nastier than what the guy himself has done.
What I object to, and I may have perceived Stadler's point wrongly here, is that the public should not form an opinion at all here, but rather wait for some foreign court to be bribed enough (and let's be honest here, Zimbabwean courts: yeah, right) to make some judgment.

My take on what should happen is: If you go to Zimbabwe and kill a protected animal, you should face a Zimbabwean court. With probably all that entails. It's the same thing that happens when moron Westerners smuggle or consume drugs in Indonesia. You put yourself into grave danger by testing local law, and you might very well land in some rotten jail for 10 years.

As an aside, extradition has begun.

But you have wrongly perceived my point. I don't believe people shouldn't have opinions, I just believe people should have more discipline in expressing them in an appropriate way and an appropriate forum, given all the facts (or not) of the case.   Who knows, but from what I read, the man is possibly in a lot of trouble.  I'm not defending him one bit.  I'm attacking those that seem to want to forget, in their moral outrage, that there is a thing called "due process" (and here I'm not limiting that to a court room) and there is the right to have dissenting and unpopular views.   "Social media" makes it too easy for a bunch of anonymous people in their mom's basements to cast judgement, but I daresay they'd be the first to cry foul if that judgment were cast against them. 

We as a society here in the States do a lot of things well, but "putting ourselves in another man's shoes" isn't one of them, and social media doesn't make that any better.

[cramx3]

Lots of good points.

I think Rumborak's comments against Stadler's seem to be that "due process" is good and we should all respect that and not rush to social media to condem someone before we know the facts or to even physically threat or harm someone, however, it's very skeptical if there will even be "due process" in a third world country so we may not get down to the bottom of this and when/if they come to a conclusion, can we even trust that it was done right? 

[Stadler]

Lots of good points.

I think Rumborak's comments against Stadler's seem to be that "due process" is good and we should all respect that and not rush to social media to condem someone before we know the facts or to even physically threat or harm someone, however, it's very skeptical if there will even be "due process" in a third world country so we may not get down to the bottom of this and when/if they come to a conclusion, can we even trust that it was done right?

Fair points, but that doesn't mean we get to kill him, or slander/libel him, nor do we get to foist our morality on someone else.   Life isn't fair sometimes (ask the Goldmans and the Browns) but it is what it is.   If he is not tried and convicted, we as a society don't get to assume that responsibility. 

Again, it is helpful to substitute things on the other side of the ledger to see if we are acting appropriately. 

[rumborak]

What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.

Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

[Chino]

I really don't care what any government thinks of this act. In zimbabwe, it is a criminal act for two members of the same sex to hold hands or hug. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not they consider this act legal.

There are 4 northern white rhinos left on the planet. Elephants are being slaughtered in front of their offsrping and having their faces hacked apart for their ivory, driving them closer to extinction. African lion populations are down 60% over the last three decades. Whale populations have been demolished. Say what you want about pushing morality on others all you want, but this isn't a matter of someone doing something I morally disagree with. This is about someone using their wealth to deliberately take part in the destruction of an ecosystem that's already hanging on by a thread. Despite everything we know. Despite all the animals we've already hunted to extinction. Despite all the warning signs. This fuck gets his rocks off by murdering a beautiful creature that should be being protected.

I could give a shit how this guy killed the thing. He could have snuck up on it in his sleep and put a bullet in his head and I'd still be just as pissed about it.

"The question is, are we happy to suppose that our grandchildren may never be able to see an elephant except in a picture book?" - David Attenborough

[Stadler]

What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.

Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

To you.  You're just rationalizing YOUR indignation.   Moral indignation is moral indignation.  They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

Which is, of course, my whole point.  You don't get to put parameters around YOUR morals to make them "right" and refuse to do so for others'.   

I really don't care what any government thinks of this act. In zimbabwe, it is a criminal act for two members of the same sex to hold hands or hug. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not they consider this act legal.

There are 4 northern white rhinos left on the planet. Elephants are being slaughtered in front of their offsrping and having their faces hacked apart for their ivory, driving them closer to extinction. African lion populations are down 60% over the last three decades. Whale populations have been demolished. Say what you want about pushing morality on others all you want, but this isn't a matter of someone doing something I morally disagree with. This is about someone using their wealth to deliberately take part in the destruction of an ecosystem that's already hanging on by a thread. Despite everything we know. Despite all the animals we've already hunted to extinction. Despite all the warning signs. This fuck gets his rocks off by murdering a beautiful creature that should be being protected.

I could give a shit how this guy killed the thing. He could have snuck up on it in his sleep and put a bullet in his head and I'd still be just as pissed about it.

"The question is, are we happy to suppose that our grandchildren may never be able to see an elephant except in a picture book?" - David Attenborough

Sort of the same answer.  Glad you don't care, glad you're able to wrap your arms around the rationalization why you're right and others are wrong.   But that's all it is:  a rationalization.  You don't like it, but this is what laws are for.  It's called the "tragedy of the commons".  So you don't "give a fuck" if it's legal or not?  That's essentially Walter Palmer's argument, isn't it?  We respect other nations' laws as they respect ours.  It's called "sovereign immunity".  Personally, I'm with you that it is immoral, and personally I would love to see some punishment be meted out.  But unless and until it does, all this moral indignation just makes you... Walter Palmer but on the other side of the arrow. 

Let's hope someone doesn't go and make death threats against you and Rumborak for your moral position.  Or maybe the advocates of the current system can ruin your job for you.  Or scare your family into hiding.   That would be fair, no?   I'm sure they have a rationalization that is every bit as logically sound as yours. 

[Chino]

What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.

Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

I can't even begin to describe how much this attitude makes my blood boil. You can't possibly be implying that because animals kill each other and everything eventually dies, that it's no big deal when humans kill for no reason other than bragging rights or ivory. Fuck.

[cramx3]

I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

[gmillerdrake]

I could give a shit how this guy killed the thing. He could have snuck up on it in his sleep and put a bullet in his head and I'd still be just as pissed about it.

This type of "trophy" hunting is ridiculous. I mean, it's near literally unbelievable that it's still allowed in this day and age. And this is coming from someone who has hunted. Difference being I hunt animals (deer/Turkey/Squirrel) that due to the manner in which humans have altered the natural order of things NEED to be harvested to maintain a healthy herd and population. Plus, I eat/share the meat. Hunting these animals is a far cry different than the trophy hunting industry that essentially corrals an animal so a really rich person can walk up to it and end it's life.

If you really want to get your blood boiling seek out some video of these "hunters" who use packs of dogs to tree Mountain Lions and Bear. It's inhumane in it's own right and I can't believe it's even allowed.

[Nick]

I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.

[Chino]

I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

What tactics? I'm showing images related to the exact topic we are discussing with literally no other agenda behind them. I'm not as good as Mr. Stadler is with words. I'm simply trying to refute the claim that "All of life ends in only one way". Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

Also, if this was any other thread, I'd maybe be inclined to agree that maybe these images are too much, but this is the science and nature thread. Nature is brutal.

[gmillerdrake]

Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

I agree. Very powerful image....

[Stadler]

What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.

Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

I can't even begin to describe how much this attitude makes my blood boil. You can't possibly be implying that because animals kill each other and everything eventually dies, that it's no big deal when humans kill for no reason other than bragging rights or ivory. Fuck.

Don't take what I said out of context, and don't insert your facts ("ivory") to make your case.   I understand your point, generally agree with it, and don't need gruesome photos to see your point of view.

What you're missing is that your (our) point of view is not the ONLY point of view.   That you and I agree (we do actually) or even a majority do, doesn't mean someone can't have an alternate point of view.   We get our opinions, we don't get to snuff out others who disagree with us.  Every time you have this conversation, every time you thing of this concept, insert "abortion" in place of "hunting" and see if you'd come out the same way (or any other moral position that is subject to intense debate).

I'm not defending the hunting, nor am I defending abuse or circumvention of laws, nor am I defending the injustice of any laws.  I'm only defending the hunter from having a different moral "north" than you.   I don't need pictures of mutilated animals to change that.   In fact, by posting that picture you clearly indicate that you have no idea what I'm saying. 

[Stadler]

I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

What tactics? I'm showing images related to the exact topic we are discussing with literally no other agenda behind them. I'm not as good as Mr. Stadler is with words. I'm simply trying to refute the claim that "All of life ends in only one way". Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

Chino, it was not a literal statement to argue the merits of ivory poaching or sport hunting.   It was an articulation of a point of view different to yours to, hopefully but apparently not successfully, show that others may have a different point of view than you, and if we're going to preach "tolerance" when it's convenient for us, we need to be able to live it when it is inconvenient. 

[TioJorge]

So guys, how about that hadron collider? Any hadrons been colliding lately?

[Chino]

What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.

Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

I can't even begin to describe how much this attitude makes my blood boil. You can't possibly be implying that because animals kill each other and everything eventually dies, that it's no big deal when humans kill for no reason other than bragging rights or ivory. Fuck.

What you're missing is that your (our) point of view is not the ONLY point of view.   That you and I agree (we do actually) or even a majority do, doesn't mean someone can't have an alternate point of view.   

No. You're wrong. There is only one point of view. We are exterminating these species at an alarming rate. This is fact and not up for debate. We have the data to prove this. We've seen it many times in our history. A hunter might have a alternate point of view than I do in regards to whether or not killing a white rhino for fun is an acceptable practice, but regardless of the point of view, there are only four left.

We get our opinions, we don't get to snuff out others who disagree with us.

No. Screw that. I don't care how strong your opinion is on something. Data is data. I'm sure there are people in Japan who share the opinion that whale populations have remained unchanged over the last century. That doesn't mean we should entertain the idea of allowing them to commercially whale at will.

[faizoff]

With regards to the technology side of this thread, I'm sure it's been mentioned before here or elsewhere but reading about the technologies created for the New Horizons probe that flew by Pluto is astounding. The amount of brain power and skillful execution of those inventions sometimes just baffles me.

[TioJorge]

With regards to the technology side of this thread, I'm sure it's been mentioned before here or elsewhere but reading about the technologies created for the New Horizons probe that flew by Pluto is astounding. The amount of brain power and skillful execution of those inventions sometimes just baffles me.

Ain't that the truth. There's some pretty incredible stuff going on, and I love that something else similar is also happening, as it's about damn time to at least try: (it might've even been posted here or elsewhere on the forum at some point)

ALIEN SEARCH. BEGIN!

Now, this isn't the original post on the topic, there was another that I don't have the time to look for that said a man (whose name escapes me) is going to fund this for years and years on end and with both the immensely ever expanding mind of the great Hawking...I really am both terrified and excited that something may happen by the time my generation is walkin' around with walkers/canes. It's enticing, but the prospect of finding something is just totally beyond me at this point.

Ed: Totally forgot we have a space thread... I'm just trying to get past this argument that will never end on the topic of hunting. But I will be a hypocrite and chime only because I'd like to celebrate this momentous occasion which has never happened before: I agree with Bryan. That's all I'll say though...pretty clear that this discussion is going to go nowhere or in circles.

[cramx3]

I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.

Not everyone likes to look at picture of decapitated animals.  Especially someone who isnt even arguing against someone in this conversation.

I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

What tactics? I'm showing images related to the exact topic we are discussing with literally no other agenda behind them. I'm not as good as Mr. Stadler is with words. I'm simply trying to refute the claim that "All of life ends in only one way". Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

Also, if this was any other thread, I'd maybe be inclined to agree that maybe these images are too much, but this is the science and nature thread. Nature is brutal.

Its a tactic because you are showing something to make a point.  As GMD stated, its a powerful image.  I am not saying it isn't, it's just not needed and like I said, some people don't come into a science and nature threat to see that even if it is being discussed (I am obviously one of them).

[Nick]

I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.

Not everyone likes to look at picture of decapitated animals.  Especially someone who isnt even arguing against someone in this conversation.

Not everyone likes that it is happening either. I consider the fact it is indeed happening, however, to be 23450948523409 times more inappropriate or offensive or off putting than the posted picture is.

[rumborak]

So guys, how about that hadron collider? Any hadrons been colliding lately?

Yeah, how far are they into this now? It's been ramping up for some months now, hasn't it?

[cramx3]

I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.

Not everyone likes to look at picture of decapitated animals.  Especially someone who isnt even arguing against someone in this conversation.

Not everyone likes that it is happening either. I consider the fact it is indeed happening, however, to be 23450948523409 times more inappropriate or offensive or off putting than the posted picture is.

That's fairly obvious, but not at all my point.  Im not even offended by it, I just have a hard time looking at blood and guts.  I thought this was a good discussion and was very much turned off by that picture because it makes me sick.  I did not think it was necessary to go that far.  If this thread, because it's science and nature, means that it's fine to show those pictures then I have been warned and I won't participate here and that's fine and all.  This may just be a personal problem of mine, I know I am weird with blood and guts.

[Podaar]

  This may just be a personal problem of mine, I know I am weird with blood and guts.

Could be true. Some of my family pictures have been more graphically nauseating.

[gmillerdrake]

Some of my family pictures have been more graphically nauseating.

Did someone snap a pic of you in a speedo? 

[rumborak]

Back to actual nature and science, here's how a Tapir scratches itself on the back:

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-tapir-scratches-itch

[CDrice]

Back to actual nature and science, here's how a Tapir scratches itself on the back:

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-tapir-scratches-itch

  ... forget the pictures of mutilated animals, that's the most disturbing thing I saw today.

[BlobVanDam]

Back to actual nature and science, here's how a Tapir scratches itself on the back:

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-tapir-scratches-itch

You scratch my back, and I............ never mind.

If I was hung like that, I wouldn't be wasting it on scratching myself. I'd be having a Japanese rotisserie.

[Stadler]

No. You're wrong. There is only one point of view. We are exterminating these species at an alarming rate. This is fact and not up for debate. We have the data to prove this. We've seen it many times in our history. A hunter might have a alternate point of view than I do in regards to whether or not killing a white rhino for fun is an acceptable practice, but regardless of the point of view, there are only four left.

Not arguing the fact.  It's what we do with it.  Sorry, but I'm not wrong.   People CAN disagree with you, and they do.   If you want tolerance when it works for you, you have to give it when it doesn't.   Anything else is hypocrisy, and that's what I'm calling out here.   Save the four rhinos the legal way, not by ruining this guy's life and bullying others into your world view. 

We get our opinions, we don't get to snuff out others who disagree with us.

No. Screw that. I don't care how strong your opinion is on something. Data is data. I'm sure there are people in Japan who share the opinion that whale populations have remained unchanged over the last century. That doesn't mean we should entertain the idea of allowing them to commercially whale at will.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not arguing data.  But data is just information to be plugged in to an equation.  You are completely talking about something else entirely here, I think.   

The Japanese cannot violate the law.  If they can whale without doing so, you can certainly make your position known, you can lobby for a change in the laws to prevent them, but you can't threaten to kill whalers, you can't defame them, you can't marginalize them and their families.   Your underlying premise that "animals are important, and the higher the number the better" isn't universal.  I'm sorry that it isn't, but it isn't.  And that's a fact too, that YOU have to live with.

[rumborak]

Can we try to not get this thread locked too? The "Let me blow your mind" thread already went to the shitter, would be nice if this one could survive.

[Stadler]

"Prehensile penis" is now my new favorite phrase. 

[Genowyn]

Some information about the significance Cecil held in the scientific community:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ha--JzqMvg

This Youtube channel is definitely worth subscribing to for anyone interested in science news as well.

[TioJorge]

I always knew the only thing keeping back this place from perfection was animal phalluses.