female martial artist almost eaten by lion

[Ghost]

Chicken?

I've been told bobcat tastes like turkey. Ghost, you're the safari guy here.

what the hell is a bobcat?

[Tom Yum]

Its basically a large, wild cat.

[DickHardman]

live and let live.

[Garland]

Ethically, is it right to enjoy killing? Hmmmm.

I think this is an interesting question. It's certainly one of the bigger ones and holds a shitload of gravity to it (as in the other shoe plummeting from the heavens and knocking the snot out of somebody below).

What did Kant have to say? Swinburn? Epicurus? Nietszche? Sade? Hegel? The Bible? The Koran? Machievelli? Sun Tzu? Winnie the Pooh? Hedon?

There are other things that need to be established before attempting to argue for or against (or indifferent to) murder or torture...through logic it's harder to ascribe value to things, or establish a right or wrong...good and evil are tricky constructs, and are honestly subjective and perhaps even relative (or non-existant) based on whichever philosophy you subscribe to.

Without delving into the more abstract questions on which these systems of ethics are based...lets consider the following in light of those ethical systems:

1) Is it wrong to kill an animal?
2) Is it wrong to kill a person?
3) Is it wrong to torture an animal?
4) Is it wrong to torture a person?

First up is Kant
Kant is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the "Categorical Imperative", and is derived from the concept of duty. Kant defines the demands of the moral law as "categorical imperatives." Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations can be tested. Kant also stated that the moral means and ends can be applied to the categorical imperative, that rational beings can pursue certain "ends" using the appropriate "means." Ends that are based on physical needs or wants will always give for merely hypothetical imperatives. The categorical imperative, however, may be based only on something that is an "end in itself". That is, an end that is a means only to itself and not to some other need, desire, or purpose.[25] He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such as what would make us happy, but to act upon the moral law which has no other motive than "worthiness of being happy"[26]. Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies to all and only rational agents.[27]
A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative)[28] In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) Kant enumerated three formulations of the categorical imperative which he believed to be roughly equivalent[29]:
Kant believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless. He didn't necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action, but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result.

Next is Hedonism and Utilitarianism:
The basic idea behind hedonistic thought is that pleasure is the only thing that is good for a person. This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain* (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this total pleasure (pleasure minus pain). The nineteenth-century British philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham defended the ethical theory of Utilitarianism, according to which we should perform whichever action is best for everyone. Conjoining hedonism, as a view as to what is good for people, to utilitarianism has the result that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Though consistent in their pursuit of happiness, Bentham and Mill’s versions of hedonism differ. There are two somewhat basic schools of thought on hedonism:[1]
One school, grouped around Jeremy Bentham, defends a quantitative approach. Bentham believed that the value of a pleasure could be quantitatively understood. Essentially, he believed the value of a pleasure to be its intensity multiplied by its duration - so it was not just the number of pleasures, but their intensity and how long they lasted that must be taken into account.
Other proponents, like John Stuart Mill argue a qualitative approach. Mill believed that there can be different levels of pleasure - higher quality pleasure is better than lower quality pleasure. Mill also argues that simpler beings (he often references pigs) have an easier access to the simpler pleasures; since they do not see other aspects of life, they can simply indulge in their pleasures. The more elaborate beings tend to spend more thought on other matters and hence lessen the time for simple pleasure. It is therefore more difficult for them to indulge in such "simple pleasures" in the same manner.

UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus sadness or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences.
It can be described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number", though the 'greatest number' part gives rise to the problematic mere addition paradox. Utilitarianism can thus be characterized as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to ethics.
Utilitarianism can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which focuses on the action itself rather than its consequences) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism.

Nietsczhe:

The three "treatises" that make up On the Genealogy of Morality (Zur Genealogie der Moral, 1887) represent the last of Nietzsche's works before his flurry of activity in 1888. Each treatise deals with the evolution of moral concepts and institutions, showing that the origins of contemporary morality reside in non-moral relationships in which power struggles and cruelty play an important part. The work appears more unproblematically philosophical in style and tone than many of Nietzsche's works. For this reason[original research?] this book has become a popular topic for scholarly analysis.[35]
In the First Treatise Nietzsche traces Christian morality back to what he calls the "slave revolt in morality", which he attributes to the ressentiment experienced by the weak members of society vis-à-vis their strong, aristocratic masters. The morality of the nobles operates with the value-distinction "good/bad"; they view themselves as evidently good and their inferiors as beneath contempt. The slaves find their subjection to the strong intolerable and thus set up an "imaginary revenge" by labelling the strong as evil and themselves as good, thereby instituting the morality of Christianity, which says that the meek shall inherit the earth.
In the Second Treatise Nietzsche sketches a pre-moral society (what he calls a "morality of custom") in which the right to inflict harm on others emerges from man's capacity, as an animal capable of memory, to make promises. The infliction of harm on the transgressor can compensate for the breaking of promises. In this way, according to Nietzsche, the institution of punishment comes about, free from any moral purpose or justification. "Bad conscience", too, originates in a pre-moral situation. Here man turns his violent animal nature on himself once he loses the freedom to roam and to pillage.
In the Third Treatise Nietzsche considers the many ways in which the "ascetic ideal" (the paradigm of Christian morality) has manifested itself, ever taking on new forms and perpetuating itself by "underground" means. Nietzsche suggests that the "will to power" drives the need to hold on to the ascetic ideal in one form or another, as a surrogate for taking revenge on a hostile world.

De Sade:

Juliette is raised in a convent, but at the age of 13 she is seduced by a woman who immediately explains that morality, religion and other such concepts are meaningless. There are plenty of similar philosophical musings during the book, all attacking the ideas of God, morals, remorse, love, etc, the overall conclusion being that the only aim in life is "to enjoy oneself at no matter whose expense."

on 120 days of sodom-
The first publisher of the work, Dr. Bloch, regarded its thorough categorization of all manner of sexual fetishes as having "scientific importance...to doctors, jurists, and anthropologists." He equated it with Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis. Feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir wrote an essay titled Must We Burn Sade?, defending the 120 Days of Sodom when, in 1955, French authorities planned on destroying it and three other major works by Sade.
On the other hand, another feminist writer, Andrea Dworkin, condemned it as "vile pornography" and its author as the embodiment of misogyny, especially as the rape, tortures and murders are inflicted by male characters on victims who are mostly (but not exclusively) female.
Noted Sade scholar Alice Laborde has charged Dworkin with "intentionally misreading the satirico-novelistic elements of the text." Instead, Laborde advocates a view of '120 Days of Sodom' that stresses the signifying, as opposed to the symbolizing, function of Sadian language and person. The "misogynistic" elements of the text thus become, for Laborde, a method of both social critique and the re-invention of the French literary corpus. Sade's fiction thus instantiates a ritual by which history is transcended and "authenticité" regained. (Laborde, A.M. Sade romancier. 1974).
Angela Carter discusses two of the characters at length and comments on Sade being a 'moral pornographer' in her book, The Sadeian Woman.
Camille Paglia considers Sade's work a "satirical response to Jean-Jacques Rousseau" in particular, and the Enlightenment concept of man's innate goodness in general. Much of the sexual violence in the book draws from the notorious historical cases of Gilles de Rais and Elizabeth Báthory.

ROUSSEAU

Rousseau saw a fundamental divide between society and human nature. Rousseau believed that man was good when in the state of nature (the state of all other animals, and the condition humankind was in before the creation of civilization and society), but is corrupted by society. This idea has often led to attributing the idea of the noble savage to Rousseau, an expression first used by John Dryden in The Conquest of Granada (1672). Rousseau, however, never used the expression himself and it does not adequately render his idea of the natural goodness of humanity. Rousseau's idea of natural goodness is complex and easy to misunderstand. Contrary to what might be suggested by a casual reading, the idea does not imply that humans in the state of nature act morally; in fact, terms such as 'justice' or 'wickedness' are simply inapplicable to pre-political society as Rousseau understands it. Humans there may act with all of the ferocity of an animal. They are good because they are self-sufficient and thus not subject to the vices of political society. He viewed society as artificial and held that the development of society, especially the growth of social interdependence, has been inimical to the well-being of human beings.
In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men centers on its transformation of amour de soi, a positive self-love, into amour-propre, or pride. Amour de soi represents the instinctive human desire for self-preservation, combined with the human power of reason. In contrast, amour-propre is artificial and forces man to compare himself to others, thus creating unwarranted fear and allowing men to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others. Rousseau was not the first to make this distinction; it had been invoked by, among others, Vauvenargues.
In "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" Rousseau argued that the arts and sciences had not been beneficial to humankind because they were not human needs, but rather a result of pride and vanity. Moreover, the opportunities they created for idleness and luxury contributed to the corruption of man. He proposed that the progress of knowledge had made governments more powerful and had crushed individual liberty. He concluded that material progress had actually undermined the possibility of true friendship by replacing it with jealousy, fear and suspicion.
His subsequent Discourse on Inequality tracked the progress and degeneration of mankind from a primitive state of nature to modern society. He suggested that the earliest human beings were solitary and differentiated from animals by their capacity for free will and their perfectibility. He also argued that these primitive humans were possessed of a basic drive to care for themselves and a natural disposition to compassion or pity. As humans were forced to associate together more closely by the pressure of population growth, they underwent a psychological transformation and came to value the good opinion of others as an essential component of their own well-being. Rousseau associated this new self-awareness with a golden age of human flourishing. However, the development of agriculture, metallurgy, private property, and the division of labor led to humans becoming increasingly dependent on one another, and led to inequality. The resulting state of conflict led Rousseau to suggest that the first state was invented as a kind of social contract made at the suggestion of the rich and powerful. This original contract was deeply flawed as the wealthiest and most powerful members of society tricked the general population, and thus instituted inequality as a fundamental feature of human society. Rousseau's own conception of the social contract can be understood as an alternative to this fraudulent form of association. At the end of the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau explains how the desire to have value in the eyes of others, which originated in the golden age, comes to undermine personal integrity and authenticity in a society marked by interdependence, hierarchy, and inequality.

[DickHardman]

i see you are doing well in your sociology classes garland. you know, sociology was pretty cool, thats what i was studying in college, before i got fed up with radically liberal california teachers constantly trying to push their homosexual agenda on me. its like ok, we have pretty much gotten rid of traditional marriage and the traditional family in this country, what else you guys want??? why do i have to keep hearing about gay rights in every single college class i take? im not even gay. cant these assholes ever talk about something else for a change?? the only cool guy was professor mcdonald who concentrated on criminology and deviant behavior(study of nuts and sluts), who would show us documentaries about women of the night, with real in field footage of some of these nightwalkers doming up random johns in alley ways and behind dumpsters. it was pretty entertaining.

[Garland]

i see you are doing well in your sociology classes garland. you know, sociology was pretty cool, thats what i was studying in college, before i got fed up with radically liberal california teachers constantly trying to push their homosexual agenda on me. its like ok, we have pretty much gotten rid of traditional marriage and the traditional family in this country, what else you guys want???

I agree with you that the emphasis of what they're teaching in contemporary psychology, sociology, and even philosophy classes on modern college campuses has gone astray from the subject matter to focus on political agendas and impose white guilt, male guilt, and so forth upon their students. This sucks, but I also have to side with people who are trying to promote equality and civil rights for people from every imaginable background or niche.
What you need to do is come to your own opinions without being reactive and without being completely taken in by everything they say. For example- I believe that there are insitutions within our society that have racist and sexist glass ceilings...but I in no way, shape, or form believe that affirmative action is a viable or equitable solution. I believe in feminist theories and ideals, and I am a firm supporter of many feminist agendas...but I will NOT be sorry for being a man, nor allow somebody to demonize me because I have a penis.

I am proud to be white, I am happy to have a penis, I take pride in my sexuality, and I think that everyone else should be happy about their shit too. I am a member of the GSA and PRIDE group on campus, my girlfriend is a feminist of the more radical sort, and I support equality and equal rights to opinions by having a diverse group of friends who range from those belonging to "ethnic minorities" to a self-proclaimed "fourth reich fighting man" neo nazi.

NEVER should I be ashamed of these things that make up my identity. When people tell me that there is no such thing as "racism against whites" or anything like that...It makes my fucking blood boil. Statements like these, and that all men are evil, etc...cause nothing but derision and contempt between people. Seriously, I was RADICALLY into equal rights up until I had to hear some of this accusatory shit...and reactively it almost turned me into a white supremecist. You have to strike a balance. And these assholes pushing their agendas need to realize that they're alienating people that are on their side.

You have to find out which shit works for you:
I am PRO-Choice
I am PRO-Gun
I am Pro-Death Penalty
I am Pro-gay marraige
I am anti-affirmative action
I am pro-immigration given certain necessary stipulations.
I am against the war but not against the warriors, and I am against drawing it out without a decisive solution in the next YEAR.
I am anti-war on terrorism, because it is an ubiquitious and bullshit term...that people have misused to strip us of our freedoms
I am anti-war on drugs, because I believe the money would be better spent focusing on treatment and research.
etc...
I am pro socialized medicine.

as for voting...
I hate Obama (he seems like a prick, and I don't like his policies), I dislike Hillary (and the idea of another American dynasty...not to mention her flipping on insurance issues), I admire McCain (humble and direct) but I don't like his party's line on most issues...and no matter who you vote for the same men behind the curtain get in. I would've voted Ron Paul.
-oh...and voting for a 3rd party is retarded.

[DickHardman]

all i know is that i just want to smoke weed, lift weights, and train in martial arts. thats all i concern myself with, and as long as those 3 things are what my life mostly consists of im ok.

i hope those dudes who shot the lion get hit by a car.

[Garland]

Well done Garland, well done.

But what is your stance on blatant plagiarism from Wikipedia?

since there is not one author, and it is simply compiled as a shared "wiki" I don't believe it's necessary to cite it. Most people wanting to get the bare bones info about something tend to check out wikipedia first anyhow.

[Tom Yum]

i hope those dudes who shot the lion get hit by a car.

Hunting set aside - you'd let a lion maul the crap out of you than shoot it?

I'm never takin' you hunting lol.

[Ghost]

I am 90% vegetarian/vegan. I don't say 100% because there are times when meat is all you can find if you are hungry and in a hurry. I mainly avoid it for ethical and nutrional reasons. I used to be into bird hunting and fishing back when I was much younger, but feel all sorts of guilt over it now, and won't do it or even watch.

However, if I was starving you bet your ass I would hunt and eat anything, including human! Even Buddhism allows for that under dire circumstances.

Now, people may draw the line at cannabalism, but I say read the book "alive". Those people had no choice, and had to do what they did, as I would.

As far as animal control, to re-establish natural levels, I don't always agree and would not want to be one of the people going in and doing it. This is coming up right now, as the grey wolf population is soaring.

For Ghost, being an English guy, you guys don't have a lot of big predators. But where I live (even within 5 miles) there are Mountain Lions, bobcats and a huge amount of coyotes. Lot's of rattlesnakes as well.

Freaks me out when I go hiking. I have been "stalked" before. I stupidly went alone to a very remote trail. Was doing good for a few hours, but had not passed another human in quite a while. Then I heard it in the bushes above the trail. I stopped, started backing up. I heard it moving through the bush. Needless to say, I started running (and yelling) with my back-pack and boots and everything clanking...I ran that way for about 7 miles back to the trailhead. Everytime I stopped to catch my breath, I could hear that damn thing in the brush. After a while, it gave up. I saw it only for a fraction of a second, a big lion about 150 pounds I think. I have not ever made the mistake of going alone on a hike again. That time I went alone out of anger, as my pussy-ass friend who was supposed to go with me could not haul his lazy carcass out of bed. And for hiking, you need to get up early to avoid the hottest part of the day, and make sure you come down from the mountain before it gets dark.

we have the beast of bodmin moor, many people have tried to hunt this beast, none have survived. this picture was taken from the camera of a mad killed by the beast.

[Tom Yum]

we have the beast of bodmin moor, many people have tried to hunt this beast, none have survived. this picture was taken from the camera of a mad killed by the beast.

And Nessie. What about Nessie?

[DickHardman]

Hunting set aside - you'd let a lion maul the crap out of you than shoot it?

I'm never takin' you hunting lol.

that lion was minding its own business till the frat guys who booked a trip to africa shot at it.

[DickHardman]

I am 90% vegetarian/vegan. I don't say 100% because there are times when meat is all you can find if you are hungry and in a hurry. I mainly avoid it for ethical and nutrional reasons. I used to be into bird hunting and fishing back when I was much younger, but feel all sorts of guilt over it now, and won't do it or even watch.

However, if I was starving you bet your ass I would hunt and eat anything, including human! Even Buddhism allows for that under dire circumstances.

Now, people may draw the line at cannabalism, but I say read the book "alive". Those people had no choice, and had to do what they did, as I would.

As far as animal control, to re-establish natural levels, I don't always agree and would not want to be one of the people going in and doing it. This is coming up right now, as the grey wolf population is soaring.

For Ghost, being an English guy, you guys don't have a lot of big predators. But where I live (even within 5 miles) there are Mountain Lions, bobcats and a huge amount of coyotes. Lot's of rattlesnakes as well.

Freaks me out when I go hiking. I have been "stalked" before. I stupidly went alone to a very remote trail. Was doing good for a few hours, but had not passed another human in quite a while. Then I heard it in the bushes above the trail. I stopped, started backing up. I heard it moving through the bush. Needless to say, I started running (and yelling) with my back-pack and boots and everything clanking...I ran that way for about 7 miles back to the trailhead. Everytime I stopped to catch my breath, I could hear that damn thing in the brush. After a while, it gave up. I saw it only for a fraction of a second, a big lion about 150 pounds I think. I have not ever made the mistake of going alone on a hike again. That time I went alone out of anger, as my pussy-ass friend who was supposed to go with me could not haul his lazy carcass out of bed. And for hiking, you need to get up early to avoid the hottest part of the day, and make sure you come down from the mountain before it gets dark.

i used to go fishing a lot when i was younger. i didnt eat the fish, i would just catch them and throw them back. i soon realized that catching fish on barbed hooks and impaling them through their heads and faces just for fun was pretty damn fucked up and pointless.

[martialartspeon]

That was great footage. I love how so many people underestimate animals like this. Even the most skilled and trained get hurt. Look at Siegfried & Roy. From the footage it looks like the lion hardly did anything and probably cracked the ribs when he dug his head into her once she was on the ground.