3 ms·

Well, what is a more reasonable response to genocide? And not just committing genocide, but they are profiting from it. Kind of like punching Nazi's - I'm wil

Well, what is a more reasonable response to genocide? And not just committing genocide, but they are profiting from it. Kind of like punching Nazi's - I'm willing to overlook the idea that it might not be entirely reasonable as long as it puts a stop to the thing.

cornholio 8y ago
Genocide means wiping a nation or people and has expanded in modern times to cover mass killings for various political reasons. Mass killing of animals is not genocide in any form. Your philosophy might deem them equivalent and I respect that view, but you should accept it's an extreme, minority position.
- magduf 8y ago
  The only reason "genocide" doesn't technically apply here is because these creatures are not humans. But unlike human genocide where only some group of humans gets wiped out in large numbers, leaving plenty of other humans walking the planet, here it's much worse: an entire species is being wiped out to complete extinction. It's demonstrably far, far worse.
  - d0lph 8y ago
    I think a key distinction here is that their intentions are not to wipe out all animals of a species, which would cause them to lose their income. Genocide is a relatively new term, created to describe the Nazis. It combines the word genos, which means race or tribe, and -cide, death.
  - cornholio 8y ago
    > It's demonstrably far, far worse. The major problem with genocide is not the disparition of a culture or ethic type, it's the killing of scores of humans that have value unto themselves. In contrast, the vast majority of legal systems and societies in existence today do not recognize the mere killing of an animal as wrong. Humans widely believe they have the right to take the life of an animal, as long as it'd done humanely, for sensible reasons and does not threaten biodiversity. So genocide and extinction are fundamentally different, orthogonal moral issues.
foolrush 8y ago
Reasonable might be to move higher up the food chain and impose life sentences on the people with the dollars ordering these species to be killed. It is just a bowl of tragedy down in the trenches.

cornholio 8y ago

Genocide means wiping a nation or people and has expanded in modern times to cover mass killings for various political reasons. Mass killing of animals is not genocide in any form. Your philosophy might deem them equivalent and I respect that view, but you should accept it's an extreme, minority position.

magduf 8y ago
The only reason "genocide" doesn't technically apply here is because these creatures are not humans. But unlike human genocide where only some group of humans gets wiped out in large numbers, leaving plenty of other humans walking the planet, here it's much worse: an entire species is being wiped out to complete extinction. It's demonstrably far, far worse.
- d0lph 8y ago
  I think a key distinction here is that their intentions are not to wipe out all animals of a species, which would cause them to lose their income. Genocide is a relatively new term, created to describe the Nazis. It combines the word genos, which means race or tribe, and -cide, death.
- cornholio 8y ago
  > It's demonstrably far, far worse. The major problem with genocide is not the disparition of a culture or ethic type, it's the killing of scores of humans that have value unto themselves. In contrast, the vast majority of legal systems and societies in existence today do not recognize the mere killing of an animal as wrong. Humans widely believe they have the right to take the life of an animal, as long as it'd done humanely, for sensible reasons and does not threaten biodiversity. So genocide and extinction are fundamentally different, orthogonal moral issues.

foolrush 8y ago

Reasonable might be to move higher up the food chain and impose life sentences on the people with the dollars ordering these species to be killed. It is just a bowl of tragedy down in the trenches.