kissdbyfire Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I agree with you and Terra. Still, when I became aware of this event it bothered me for all the reasons you and Terra listed and I don't like it when people say that I can't be upset because there are better things to be upset about. I live to be upset! Don't tell me I can't be upset! ;)http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/world/africa/american-hunter-is-accused-of-killing-cecil-a-beloved-lion-in-zimbabwe.html?_r=0 We are allowed to be upset by all of it, right? All of the social injustices, all the cruelty - be it towards fellow humans or animals - right? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 You'd be surprised. In your typical socialist revolution, the intelligentsia, including lawyers, are usually among the first to go. You don't exactly need a traditional law degree to adjudicate someone an enemy of the working class after a secret hearing. The law becomes pretty simple in a revolutionary context. Lenin was trained as a lawyer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I am the walrus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Lenin was trained as a lawyer... So was Alexander Kerensky, who rose to fame as a defense attorney for the Bolsheviks in political trials initiated by the Tsarist government. Kerensky, a revolutionary himself, was the second leader of the Russian Provisional Government. His government was ultimately overthrown by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and as a thank you for helping foster the first revolution, and for defending the Bolsheviks against Tsarist oppression, he was rewarded with a lifetime of exile from Russia. He, at least, managed to escape with his life. The revolution devours its children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Interesting.... I did not know that. In furtherance of your point, there are some interpretations of Shakespeare's "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" as of lawyers being the bulwark of society against a rampaging mob. Anyway, sorry for the digression, back to the lion hunting..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 course all the progressives will say that there are too many African villagers, and lions to an eco service by helping to keep the human populations under control does anyone actually argue that? it strikes me as a whole as a profoundly bad caricature, rooted in right-populist mythology. one often finds reflections on 'overpopulation' on both sides of the spectrum, though my appreciation of the proper far left position is that 'overpopulation' is philistine or fascistic rhetoric; the proper conception by contrast is underdevelopment. the fearsome LJWs of the right-populist imaginary offer no policy remedies for underdevelopment, but apparently are willing to feed people to lions in order to control the population of african villagers and/or christian martyrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 course all the progressives will say that there are too many African villagers, and lions to an eco service by helping to keep the human populations under control does anyone actually argue that? it strikes me as a whole as a profoundly bad caricature, rooted in right-populist mythology. one often finds reflections on 'overpopulation' on both sides of the spectrum, though my appreciation of the proper far left position is that 'overpopulation' is philistine or fascistic rhetoric; the proper conception by contrast is underdevelopment. the fearsome LJWs of the right-populist imaginary offer no policy remedies for underdevelopment, but apparently are willing to feed people to lions in order to control the population of african villagers and/or christian martyrs. It is a position hold by very extreme environmentalist. Who a generally very "left" (self defined of course). But you know, if you take it a bit too far, "green becomes brown". And people with that attitude are on that line and beyond... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 It is a position hold by very extreme environmentalist. Who a generally very "left" (self defined of course). But you know, if you take it a bit too far, "green becomes brown". And people with that attitude are on that line and beyond... ha my favorite thing about one of the old civilization games is that the 'environmentalist' gubmint had access to an ecowarrior hippie van that released nanites that reduced cities and their populations back to pure wilderness. i doubt that many environmentalists support that kinda stuff, but if they counterpose animal rights against human rights and side with the former, then perhaps their left pedigree is open to doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 ha my favorite thing about one of the old civilization games is that the 'environmentalist' gubmint had access to an ecowarrior hippie van that released nanites that reduced cities and their populations back to pure wilderness. i doubt that many environmentalists support that kinda stuff, but if they counterpose animal rights against human rights and side with the former, then perhaps their left pedigree is open to doubt. I would definitely support said nanites, but not for ecological reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baitac Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 We are allowed to be upset by all of it, right? All of the social injustices, all the cruelty - be it towards fellow humans or animals - right? :( I know! Seriously. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baitac Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I am the walrus. Of course you are! <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 am reminded of zadie smith's presentation of 'extremist' animal rights activists in white teeth, who began as passionate student radicals, "but political infighting, back-stabbing, and endless factionalizing soon disillusioned them as far as the fate of Homo erectus was concerned (396), and they were joined otherwise by political drifters (id.). i first thought that this sort of animal rights activist--who has given up on human rights activism and conspires with ideological vagrants--was the progressive wing of lumpenized antisocial nihilism. that 'progressive' identification may be woefully incorrect, however, if in fact this hypothetical group is loaded with misanthropic LANs. i see the appeal of the LANARA: the purity of representation is only to be surpassed by the pristine representative relation that pro-lifers enjoy with fetals. human rights activists by contrast must represent someone who is disagreeable, fucks up their own cause, may appear as 'immoral' in some particulars, may have (and squander) their own capabilities in a way that that some say supersedes the need for representation, may blame the representative for setbacks, may cause setbacks by failing to abide the representative, and so on. with animals (and a fortiori fetals) none of that happens. the leos may on occasion fuck up their case by disregarding the LJWs repeated advise to avoid eating villagers--but otherwise the leos have fairly clean hands, all things considered. the leos, and the fetals, will never come out of the woodwork to contradict the representative, and even when someone gets eaten, it's not the fault of the leo, who is just hungry and following leonine nature. it's a cute little micro-totalitarianism, the pro-lifers and the LANARAs, i suppose, wherein the represented group does not contribute at all to the representation and their interests are sought to be directed by representatives who may never 'meet' them. (i think the corollary hypothesis must accordingly be that pro-lifers are also LANs--shall cogitate!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wethers Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I am the walrus. Shut the F up, Donny! V.I. Lenin. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI-tkIXqHBw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 ha my favorite thing about one of the old civilization games is that the 'environmentalist' gubmint had access to an ecowarrior hippie van that released nanites that reduced cities and their populations back to pure wilderness. i doubt that many environmentalists support that kinda stuff, but if they counterpose animal rights against human rights and side with the former, then perhaps their left pedigree is open to doubt. No, they are basically fashists if it comes down to it. If you feel empathy for cats, dogs and other cute animals, but can't feel empathy for people who do not look like you, it does not really make you an environmentalist, it makes you a racist of the worst kind. Thats my point. That yes, some of them exist who proclaim to be left, and proclaim to be non racist but the second it comes down to it, they have more empathy for a pet than for a person of color or generally for a person outside their "kind". (so it might include poor persons etc.) To stay with your game, my guess is you did not use those nanites on your own cities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html?mabReward=A7[/url] Talking about it, a viewpoint of the native people overthere. And now imagine a sitiation like that in New York, and the guys in Texas would be like, the poor lion. We killed our lions, because they were a menace, but for nature africans should endure it. Hell, if I look at whats going on in germany about wolfs, and they did not kill a single person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html?mabReward=A7 Talking about it, a viewpoint of the native people overthere. And now imagine a sitiation like that in New York, and the guys in Texas would be like, the poor lion. We killed our lions, because they were a menace, but for nature africans should endure it. Hell, if I look at whats going on in germany about wolfs, and they did not kill a single person. That viewpoint will result in the extermination of all lions in the wild. Sorry, just because he's a native does not make him right. He is no more right than US ranchers who want to kill all the wolves because they are an inconvenience. Sometimes the "locals" do not see the big picture and this is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolverine Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 That viewpoint will result in the extermination of all lions in the wild. Sorry, just because he's a native does not make him right. He is no more right than US ranchers who want to kill all the wolves because they are an inconvenience. Sometimes the "locals" do not see the big picture and this is one of them. I didn't see anywhere that he wants the extirpation of all lions. It does look like he is not in favor with them living with people. I live in Minnesota and there are way more wolves here than any other of the contiguous states. A lot of people are not in favor of their rapid expansion south into populated regions, but are in favor of them living in our wild northwest. It is possible you can not want to live with a fearsome wild beast, yet also not want them exterminated completely. It is not fair to put people on one side or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 but are in favor of them living in our wild northwest. okay, this just clarified the entire thing for me. it is basically a NIMBYism to want wildlife preserves, but somewhere else--which makes these preserves structurally identical to prisons, landfills, nukular waste disposal sites, and facilities for torture. they are a part of bataille's accursed share. nice. thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 Are people condemning Cecil's slaying also advocating that no lions should be killed, ever? I don't think so. The welfare of the villagers and to a large extent, their livelihood, should be protected. If lions on the reservation escape to harm the villages nearby, then those lions should be either re-captured or killed. So the claim that "leftists" want to favor lions over humans seems like a giant strawman to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.