to be honest i'm not sure of my ground here. i think things really get interesting when you start asking questions that determine the worthiness of one animal to live over another, and trying to find the answer leads to finding situations like cecil the lion much more complex. not because it makes cecil's death any less outrageous, but because it possibly makes many more deaths much more so. isn't value of species diversity a human cultural trait, and therefore also kind of arbitrary? why is the life of a single endangered species innately more valuable than another life of equal or higher intelligence (or any other metric of value)? how do non-human primates figure into the equation? asking this question forces us into nebulous ethical territory, because defining ethics by humanity leads us to the territory of living beings straddling the cultural fence between humans (they exhibit culture) and animals. is killing a chimp worse than killing a lion? is killing a lion worse than killing a squirrel? is cultural value a random assignment? does it vary cross-culturally? is it dumb? i'm really not trying to be a neckbeard poking holes in cultural norms because i'm above them. i find this as outrageous as all of you. but this is a deep rabbit hole and imo it's a conversation worth having, as the ramifications are far-reaching.
i'm not arguing it's not culturally fuged up, i'm arguing that culture sometimes appropriates things weirdly. pigs are highly intelligent animals but no one gets mad when they die by the truckload. my point in bringing it up is not to excuse the act or diminish it (i've been clear that i think it's terrible and he's scum) but i can't help but feel ridiculous turning bright red over a dude killing killing a lion when idgaf that, say, pigs die. yes, i get that the guy didn't kill the lion to eat it (which is why we're killing pigs) but if this was a guy who lured a popular pig out of a pig farm and shot it i wouldn't give two shits. my posts are more an indictment of my own internal conflict on the arbitrary nature of cultural selection of some animals as more highly valued than others, not a criticism of general outrage, of which i partake.
police are taught from day one of BLET that a car is a deadly weapon (which it is) and any use of the weapon by a perp is cause for return fire with intent to kill. add in a police culture of covering for each other and betraying citizen to save brother and you're ripe for these sorts of things happening the moment some clown gets the opportunity to act out his fantasy of gunning down a thug. i've mentioned before that i have a key informant that's a former atlanta metro police officer that's told me horror stories of internal cover-ups that encourage and protect police brutality and nearly indiscriminate killing. it's staggering to imagine the number of wrongful deaths that've never seen the light of day when you consider the alternative, non-body-cam scenario of the cops corroborating each others' stories and the case being closed before the body's cold. LEO ROI reform should be a bipartisan effort.
that's not what i'm saying at all. i'm saying we attribute certain traits and personal connections to animals which are independent of the animal's cognitive abilities or rate of slaughter. reading about this dude killing the lion elicits a visceral gut reaction that pisses me off, and i think he's a giant scumbag, but i also recognize that getting mad just because it's a lion is kind of silly when zillions of pigs get zapped every year.
i don't really care if people kill animals. people have been killing animals since the beginning of time. i also don't think it's logical to get any more outraged over a lion's death than, say, a pig's, especially considering the latter are industrially slaughtered. but killing for the sake of killing is some fuged up poo. that dick is standing around shirtless holding up dead animals because he thinks it makes him look like a total badass. what a douche. also it's pathetic that game hunters defend it as "helping conservation." it helps conservation because the money they pay to destroy another life for the sake of destroying another life goes towards conservation. if they gave a flying poo about conservation they'd donate the money and show up to the park on a bus with a pair of binoculars and a camera.
i think i was numb by that point. we'd seen that script too many times to not know exactly what was coming our way. it was 2012 all over again. god, what hell that was. i was watching that game with a bills fan. how i managed to kick her out of my house without using my foot i'll never know.