5 ms·

>You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out

>You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out in the wild? Really? And if you want to talk about starvation, then let's talk about the source of Lions struggling out in the world, like human encroachment on their hunting grounds, farming, deforestation, etc. Do you know what happens to male lions in the wild? A stronger male lion takes their mate, kills their children, and then kills them. And this is just the ones lucky enough to survive that long. Male lions are kicked out of their pride as soon as they reach adolescence. Most don’t even make it to adulthood or survive long enough to mate. And if you’ve never seen an animal kill another animal, they don’t exactly prioritize a quick and painless death. Life as a wild lion is nasty, brutish, and short. It’s incredible, the the romantic notions that people dream up for themselves.

cbluth 8y ago
Kinda sounds like you don't like the zoo.
coldtea 8y ago
Isn't that, like, their natural way of being? Wtf is being proposed here, to keep lions at capture to avoid the parts of their lifestyle we don't like or consider too savage? That which you described is what MAKES a lion.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. As an aside: I personally don’t think it actually matters whether captivity is better than nature, but I’m pointing out arguendo that it probably isn’t. I think it is fine, short of wanton cruelty, for us humans to use animals for our own ends.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. Of course it does. >The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. The civilisation is human's wild. We built this, it was not imposed upon us.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. It's a sad day when you need to give a reason why captivity is worst than letting lions live free. In the end, even genocide is not good or bad objectively. It depends on a value judgement, which from a rational perspective it's still a leap of faith or "fallacy". Either you acknowledge the value of freedom for animals or you don't. But to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy" let's perform an empirical, scientific experiment: let's keep you captive in a cage for several years, and see how you fare, and whether you find it alright afterwards. We'll also have a control group and everything of course, lest we mess up the experiment. >Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too. In the lion's case, it's a nature imposed on them, so there's a difference. Just because we're all parts of nature doesn't mean we enjoy or thrive under everything that happens in nature: we wouldn't enjoy being eaten by lions or being kept captive in cages by higher sentient animals (e.g. aliens).
        8y ago

cbluth 8y ago

Kinda sounds like you don't like the zoo.

coldtea 8y ago

Isn't that, like, their natural way of being? Wtf is being proposed here, to keep lions at capture to avoid the parts of their lifestyle we don't like or consider too savage? That which you described is what MAKES a lion.

marcoperaza 8y ago
It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. As an aside: I personally don’t think it actually matters whether captivity is better than nature, but I’m pointing out arguendo that it probably isn’t. I think it is fine, short of wanton cruelty, for us humans to use animals for our own ends.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. Of course it does. >The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. The civilisation is human's wild. We built this, it was not imposed upon us.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. It's a sad day when you need to give a reason why captivity is worst than letting lions live free. In the end, even genocide is not good or bad objectively. It depends on a value judgement, which from a rational perspective it's still a leap of faith or "fallacy". Either you acknowledge the value of freedom for animals or you don't. But to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy" let's perform an empirical, scientific experiment: let's keep you captive in a cage for several years, and see how you fare, and whether you find it alright afterwards. We'll also have a control group and everything of course, lest we mess up the experiment. >Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too. In the lion's case, it's a nature imposed on them, so there's a difference. Just because we're all parts of nature doesn't mean we enjoy or thrive under everything that happens in nature: we wouldn't enjoy being eaten by lions or being kept captive in cages by higher sentient animals (e.g. aliens).
      - 8y ago