Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

[G-Man]

The subject of how the killing of Cecil the Lion received disproportionate media and public outrage was raised on the Dentist/Cecil thread, but it merits its own thread now that we have a fair comparison rather than all sorts of unrelated points.

Yesterday Israeli settler terrorists firebombed two Palestinian homes near Nablus. One house was empty; in the other, the family fled, except Baby Ali, who was burnt alive.

This should cause massive outrage. If a white American/British/German baby was burnt alive in similar circumstances by terrorists, the outrage would be immense, and the monster who did it -- and it seems he is known -- would be hated more than any hunting dentist.

Especially when you read a paragraph like this: "...the father was able to rescue his wife and 4-year-old son, but could not locate the baby, Ali, in the darkness." (Haaretz report) The father and four-year-old suffered 75% burns as well.

Scanning the Internet, it's not a big story, it seems. The only UK newspaper who hits high ion Google on the story is the Daily Mail (which, in fairness, has a good record on covering crimes against Palestinians).

Meanwhile, an animal psychic has been in touch with Cecil and received an inspiring message from the late lion.

It's a bizarre thing that a lion is humanised, but a Palestinian baby is so dehumanised that this is not the biggest story on the Internet.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

British press in "ignoring atrocities carried out by Israelis" shocker.

[MsD]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

It's a way more complex issue.

As regards the media .. There was a BBC documentary recently which interviewed Palestinian and Israeli children around Gaza; of course far more of the Palestinian children had suffered loss and displacement, but the documentary makers were careful to state that although a thousand children were killed on one side, and just one on the other, both sides had been found to have committed war crimes.

What the Jewish Chronicle was concerned about was that the Palestinian children used the word "Jews" in a somewhat derogatory manner, but the subtitles had gone with "Israelis". Thus showing, to them, how the BBC played down the Palestinians' deep hatred of Israel.

[ursus arctos]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

The Grauniad had a prominent report on the home page and a good opinion piece skewering the hypocrisy of Bibi and Neftali Bennett, who have condemned the attack as terrorism.

[ursus arctos]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

"Giraffes are dangerous"

Why can't they all start hunting armadillos?

[DCI Harry Batt]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote: British press in "ignoring atrocities carried out by Israelis" shocker.

Israel/Israelis, yeah.

[linus]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

In all fairness, giraffes are dangerous, they have the most lethal kick in the animal kingdom. Of course if she's hunting them with a high-powered rifle from a good distance, there is little danger involved.

The issue here and with the lion is whether these western safari hunters are targeting threatened species, it shouldn't be a story if it's not the case. In principle, if the population size is healthy and funds from hunters could be put back into wildlife management, then it's not a bad thing.

[ursus arctos]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

Though there's very little evidence of the funds in these cases going to anyone other than the "professional hunting guides" (who presumably kick some of their gains back to public officials).

[WOM]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

linus wrote: The issue here and with the lion is whether these western safari hunters are targeting threatened species, it shouldn't be a story if it's not the case. In principle, if the population size is healthy and funds from hunters could be put back into wildlife management, then it's not a bad thing.

I think it's more along the lines of the public finally hearing the penny drop and thinking "Wow. They're just killing beautiful creatures for the sake of killing beautiful creatures." And that it's absurd and repugnant on so many levels. This is not hunting to eat or for environmental benefit. It's murder of other species for joy.

[linus]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

Most hunters kill for "joy" though, that's the premise of their hobby. Since the giraffe population in S. Africa is healthy, and hunts tightly regulated, doesn't the difference between hunting moose in Nova Scotia or giraffes in SA boil down to the latter (subjectively) being more beautiful creatures?

[WOM]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

It would depend on whether the moose were being used for their meat, I suppose. I think most people can square sensible killing vs senseless killing. This was simply death as sport.

I don't disagree that the joy of the hunt / kill is the locus of the hobby. It's just that people are looking upon it slightly differently now.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

A fair whack of meat production is for pleasure too, mind.

[WOM]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

Whether people eat meat for nutrition or pleasure is difficult to divine. Figuring whether they kill out of necessity or sport isn't too tough.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

Does one not inform the other?

[WOM]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

In the former, sure. In the latter, less sure.

[San Bernardhinault]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

linus wrote: Most hunters kill for "joy" though, that's the premise of their hobby. Since the giraffe population in S. Africa is healthy, and hunts tightly regulated, doesn't the difference between hunting moose in Nova Scotia or giraffes in SA boil down to the latter (subjectively) being more beautiful creatures?

I think this is a fair point - it is harder to be outraged that someone has hunted a non-protected species like giraffe in a fairly reasonably regulated environment like South Africa, than it is to be outraged by the poaching of a protected lion in a national park in Zimbabwe.

But the question of "joy" baffles me in this case. Giraffe basically hang around under trees eating away, and don't see humans as predators. So hunting and shooting a giraffe would be about as joyful as hunting a shooting a cow in a farmer's field; or perhaps stalking and shooting a house.

[seand]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

San Bernardhinault wrote:

Most hunters kill for "joy" though, that's the premise of their hobby. Since the giraffe population in S. Africa is healthy, and hunts tightly regulated, doesn't the difference between hunting moose in Nova Scotia or giraffes in SA boil down to the latter (subjectively) being more beautiful creatures?

I think this is a fair point - it is harder to be outraged that someone has hunted a non-protected species like giraffe in a fairly reasonably regulated environment like South Africa, than it is to be outraged by the poaching of a protected lion in a national park in Zimbabwe.

But the question of "joy" baffles me in this case. Giraffe basically hang around under trees eating away, and don't see humans as predators. So hunting and shooting a giraffe would be about as joyful as hunting a shooting a cow in a farmer's field; or perhaps stalking and shooting a house.

And we neatly circle back to Israeli policy in Palestine

[G-Man]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

Indeed.

One of the terrorists (which even the crazies in the Israeli government call them) has been arrested. I wonder if the security forces demolished his parents' his, beat his mother, deported his father and detained his 11-yeat-old brother as they arrested him. It's policy, isn't it?

[Guy Profumo]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

seand wrote:

Most hunters kill for "joy" though, that's the premise of their hobby. Since the giraffe population in S. Africa is healthy, and hunts tightly regulated, doesn't the difference between hunting moose in Nova Scotia or giraffes in SA boil down to the latter (subjectively) being more beautiful creatures?

I think this is a fair point - it is harder to be outraged that someone has hunted a non-protected species like giraffe in a fairly reasonably regulated environment like South Africa, than it is to be outraged by the poaching of a protected lion in a national park in Zimbabwe.

But the question of "joy" baffles me in this case. Giraffe basically hang around under trees eating away, and don't see humans as predators. So hunting and shooting a giraffe would be about as joyful as hunting a shooting a cow in a farmer's field; or perhaps stalking and shooting a house.

And we neatly circle back to Israeli policy in Palestine

You are Mark Thomas. I claim my £5.

[ad hoc]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

WOM wrote: Whether people eat meat for nutrition or pleasure is difficult to divine.

Nah it isnt. Only a very few eat meat for nutrition (eg Inuits). The vast majority of the world's population eat meat just because they enjoy it. End of story.

[WOM]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

ad hoc wrote:

Whether people eat meat for nutrition or pleasure is difficult to divine.

Nah it isnt. Only a very few eat meat for nutrition (eg Inuits). The vast majority of the world's population eat meat just because they enjoy it. End of story.

That sounds suspiciously like opinion masquerading as fact.

[ad hoc]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

It is opinion, but it's opinion honed after many years of asking people why they eat meat and discovering that it always ALWAYS boils down to "because I like it" and nothing more. The only people who eat meat for any other reasons are those who either are members of indigenous groups for whom meat makes up the main chunk of their diet (and indeed the sources of food available to them) and those who are so desperate that any food they can get is something that needs to be eaten, for their very survival

[WOM]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

Well, it's a curious question and one that people probably don't consider unless asked for a fairly short-order answer.

I'd imagine a bit more thought would reveal that it's simply the way most people are raised, and that they've never been prompted to examine their motivations before. If someone's never made the case for vegetarianism or veganism to them, why would they question the food choices they were raised with?

I think many people would also think it's a necessary source of protein, given that many veg's say they eat a bit of chicken or fish because they need the protein.

[ad hoc]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

It's no more a curious question than "Why are you a Catholic?" (for example). They may indeed have never been asked it but it's a perfectly normal question (I get asked the reverse question several times a week). I ask it precisely because people are rarely asked it. (And once they understand that they don't need the protein - or they don't need that specific protein over and above any other - then it really does boil down to "I eat meat because I want to".)

[WOM]

Shot Lion vs Burnt Baby

I meant that it's curious in that people likely aren't asked it that often (if ever) so aren't prepared with a thoughtful answer. I'd imagine you'd get the same answer to your Catholic question: "It's how I was raised".

And yes, the reason you get asked the reverse question is because a) it's not the norm for your society and b) it's a clearly conscious decision, so people want to know the motivations. Neither holds true for meat eaters (in your society).

And yes, once they understand that they don't need it for the protein, etc, they say they like it. Of course they like it. But that answer being their first answer isn't as clear as you're making it out to be.