View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default natural predators & a natural life is cruel? "Yes" - according to usual suspect AND NOW DUTCH

"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Dutch wrote:
> >> >> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and
> >> >> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature
> >> >> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese.
> >> >>
> >> >> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your
> >> >> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day.
> >> >> See you tomorrow, Jon.

> >
> >Snipping and changing the subject won't work Nash. Get this through your
> >thick head;
> >
> >"Nature can be cruel."

>
> No, it cannot be cruel.


Then why do millions of people say it?

> "Get this, ****WIT:
>
> If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral
> meaning to it.


I didn't say there was a moral meaning to a predator killing a prey animal,
I said that nature can be cruel.

> If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have
> not done a good deed.


I didn't say that if you prevent a predator from killing prey you have done
a good deed, I said that nature can be cruel.

> Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators'
> "treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid
> when you keep doing it after having had explained to
> you why it's misguided.


Perhaps it's misguided if one uses the pain inflicted on prey by predators
as an excuse to inflict pain on livestock, but I'm not doing that, and I
don't believe anyone here was doing that. Perhaps the idea is in fact to
obtain perspective to treat animals *differently* than nature treats them.

> One more to jam down your throat with my boot,
> ****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel.
> They can't be."
> Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11


That means that non-human predators are not moral actors and cannot be
"cruel" in the human sense. The fact remains that the natural world is still
"cruel" when viewed *in human terms*, without judgement or expectation that
it should or could be any different (see 2. in the dictionary.com definition
of cruel)
>
> >It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was being cruel when

he
> >broke the broom over his dog's back."

>
> Have you any evidence to support that claim?


Are you denying it?