Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you post the notices in the cellar behind the door marked "Beware of the TIger", not many of us are going to see them.

That's only to keep the riff raff out, you know, the people who might actually object to the plan.

Dalek Prime wrote: I would. I love cats. " Kitty kitty?" <3

You might remember this, if you're really really old. - Like me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVR18o2rq2o

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: I would. I love cats. " Kitty kitty?" <3

You might remember this, if you're really really old. - Like me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVR18o2rq2o

I love Tiger Rag! Have Cab Calloway's version on my iPod!

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: I would. I love cats. " Kitty kitty?" <3

You might remember this, if you're really really old. - Like me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVR18o2rq2o

I love Tiger Rag! Have Cab Calloway's version on my iPod!

Cab Calloway, damn you are officially a B.O.F. Enjoy.

To answer the question, those who are paid to cull the African prides.

The prides must be culled because of a recent ecological imbalance. The ecological imbalance was caused by a publicity campaign that successfully scared off the big game hunters.

Not enough prey for the growing abundance of lions, more people become prey. People who survive lion attacks often have their arms ripped off, so folks who live amongst lions don’t care for them so much. However, influential people safe on other continents see the lion’s majesty and use them as entertainment characters to teach folks things such as the circle of life rather than going to heaven, animated to be properly antiseptic.

Question: Since the publicity campaign, are the lion shooters now paid by gubbrerment to cull? Or, do the killers still pay big bucks to cull, as in the past?

There's a moral difference between killing an animal for sound ecological and public safety reasons and killing an animal for fun.

Obvious Leo wrote:There's a moral difference between killing an animal for sound ecological and public safety reasons and killing an animal for fun.

How about for food, which has been done since the beginning of time by both humans and other animals?

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:There's a moral difference between killing an animal for sound ecological and public safety reasons and killing an animal for fun.

How about for food, which has been done since the beginning of time by both humans and other animals?

Quite right, Bob, and I'm obliged to you for pointing it out. If the gentleman needed to travel to Africa to shoot the lion so he could feed it to his starving children he would have been perfectly morally justified in doing so. Possibly a trip down to Maccas for a couple of burgers may have been cheaper, however.

bobevenson wrote:Wait a minute, even in nature, animals kill other animals not for just food, but for other reasons, including fun.

Oh mumble, mumble der never fort of that. dah I fink i'll change my goal posts.

People don't eat lions, they taste like shit.

Nature shows on tv are ideological. They want you to think that nature is constantly eating itself. But it's a control meme from above.

Pluto wrote:Nature shows on tv are ideological. They want you to think that nature is constantly eating itself. But it's a control meme from above.

Nature programs are about fucking and hunting. Killing for fun is rare to non existent. Bob was just pressed into a corner and talks his usual bollocks.

Pluto wrote: But it's a control meme from above.

Have you been hearing the voices again, mate? It's probably best to just take the tablets according to the schedule specified by the professionals.

Yes, they tell me you are the perfect kind of new person. Non thinking.

A communist system shores up its relevance and accordance with the natural order of things by positioning nature in alignment to its system. Nature is an ideological construction to fit the system. So that it anchors the system within the law of the universe.

Pluto wrote: A communist system shores up its relevance and accordance with the natural order of things by positioning nature in alignment to its system. Nature is an ideological construction to fit the system. So that it anchors the system within the law of the universe.

I'm in no doubt that this statement is one from which you derive great meaning. Alas it translates poorly into the vernacular of a simple country lad.