Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:14PM, rabello wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I just watched a video of hyenas eating a buffalo calf alive.

Now, what was it you were saying about suffering and compassion?

What I said was, was that "sentient" is the more significant word to use than "sapient" when talking about one creature causing pain, suffering and fear to another creature. 

The hyena does it out of necessity, the human does it out of choice, generally for enjoyment one way, or the other.

When I'm talking about "sentient" I am not talking about the human.  It was someone else who said the word "sentient" has no meaning when it comes to humans causing pain, suffering, and fear to animals.  And you are the one who decided to substitute the supposedly meaningless word "sentient" with the supposedly significant word "sapient".  Your's is a human-centered orientation.

Now, what was it you were saying about "sapient" and how does the word relate to humans conscientiously causing fear, pain and suffering to sentient creatures for enjoyments?

Protecting an intact ecosystem from an destructive invasive species is a necessity.

We display compassion and higher wisdom by killing the snakes that might need to be eliminated in the quickest, most painless way possible. All previous joking about setting Kim Kardashian lose with a knife aside -- say, a shotgun blast to the head. Instant, painless death. 

That is far higher, better and kinder than any way nature might end a snake's life.

Furhermore, as I stated in my previous post, wisdom says it's best to weight the greater good of the whole ecosystem, rather than blather and agonize over the fate of each individual snake. 

Irrational blathering is not wise, or, in the big picture, is it kind, caring or compassionate.

Sacrificing an entire ecosystem because some don't have the stomach to kill snakes is stupid. Stupidity, again, is not becoming of wisdom -- or big-picture kindness and compassion.  

In the end, "animal rights" hasn't a clue what compassion and wisdom really are, IMO. 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Protecting an intact ecosystem from an destructive invasive species is a necessity.

We display compassion and higher wisdom by killing the snakes that might need to be eliminated in the quickest, most painless way possible. All previous joking about setting Kim Kardashian lose with a knife aside -- say, a shotgun blast to the head. Instant, painless death. 

That is far higher, better and kinder than any way nature might end a snake's life.

Furhermore, as I stated in my previous post, wisdom says it's best to weight the greater good of the whole ecosystem, rather than blather and agonize over the fate of each individual snake. 

Irrational blathering is not wise, or, in the big picture, is it kind, caring or compassionate.

Sacrificing an entire ecosystem because some don't have the stomach to kill snakes is stupid. Stupidity, again, is not becoming of wisdom -- or big-picture kindness and compassion.  

Well, you are talking about something other than what I'm talking about or what this thread is about.

You and I both know that the snake(s) that was/were used to create Kim Kardashian's body-decorations didn't come from the Everglades.   In fact, what is going on in the Everglades has nothing to do with the killing of snakes -- or any reptile, or mammal -- to create body-decorations for rich people.   That was a red herring brought into the discussion, apparently to excuse the killing of snakes to create Kim Kardashian's body-deocrations.   You and I both know that the snakes being killed in the Florida Everglades aren't being killed as quickly or humanely as possible, with a "quick" shot to the head.   Those who would skin a snake alive in order to create body-decorations for rich people are not excused from their brutality because pythons are being killed due a man-made disaster in an environment that developers want to use for condo's and shopping centers.   The two subjects are apples and oranges.

My interest in the words "sentient" and "sapient" is limited to the claim that was made that the word "sentient" has no real meaning that applies to the suffering of animals at the hands of humans...that argument has already been put forth to justify the killing of sentient beings like whales and dolphins in the cruelest of ways.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

In the end, "animal rights" hasn't a clue what compassion and wisdom really are, IMO. 

I would say that those who would defend the inhumane killing of animals in order to create human body-decorations, or accessories like belts, wallets, or purses -- and that would  include skinning reptiles alive for their skins, clubbing baby seals that can't get away in the head till they're dead for their pelts, trapping fur-bearing animals in steel leghold traps, or growing them on fur farms for their pelts, spearing dolphins over and over again till they're dead, are the ones who haven't a clue as to what compassion and wisdom really are.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:23PM, rabello wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Protecting an intact ecosystem from an destructive invasive species is a necessity.

We display compassion and higher wisdom by killing the snakes that might need to be eliminated in the quickest, most painless way possible. All previous joking about setting Kim Kardashian lose with a knife aside -- say, a shotgun blast to the head. Instant, painless death. 

That is far higher, better and kinder than any way nature might end a snake's life.

Furhermore, as I stated in my previous post, wisdom says it's best to weight the greater good of the whole ecosystem, rather than blather and agonize over the fate of each individual snake. 

Irrational blathering is not wise, or, in the big picture, is it kind, caring or compassionate.

Sacrificing an entire ecosystem because some don't have the stomach to kill snakes is stupid. Stupidity, again, is not becoming of wisdom -- or big-picture kindness and compassion.  

Well, you are talking about something other than what I'm talking about or what this thread is about.

You and I both know that the snake(s) that was/were used to create Kim Kardashian's body-decorations didn't come from the Everglades.   In fact, what is going on in the Everglades has nothing to do with the killing of snakes -- or any reptile, or mammal -- to create body-decorations for rich people.   That was a red herring brought into the discussion, apparently to excuse the killing of snakes to create Kim Kardashian's body-deocrations.   You and I both know that the snakes being killed in the Florida Everglades aren't being killed as quickly or humanely as possible, with a "quick" shot to the head.   Those who would skin a snake alive in order to create body-decorations for rich people are not excused from their brutality because pythons are being killed due a man-made disaster in an environment that developers want to use for condo's and shopping centers.   The two subjects are apples and oranges.

My interest in the words "sentient" and "sapient" is limited to the claim that was made that the word "sentient" has no real meaning that applies to the suffering of animals at the hands of humans...that argument has already been put forth to justify the killing of sentient beings like whales and dolphins in the cruelest of ways.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

In the end, "animal rights" hasn't a clue what compassion and wisdom really are, IMO. 

I would say that those who would defend the inhumane killing of animals in order to create human body-decorations, or accessories like belts, wallets, or purses -- and that would  include skinning reptiles alive for their skins, clubbing baby seals that can't get away in the head till they're dead for their pelts, trapping fur-bearing animals in steel leghold traps, or growing them on fur farms for their pelts, spearing dolphins over and over again till they're dead, are the ones who haven't a clue as to what compassion and wisdom really are.

Sounds like we're trading apples and oranges. (Care for a tangerine?)

I was talking specifically about the Everglades pythons, since the subject came up.

Yes, I'm well aware that Miss Kardashian's boots probably did not come from such a source.

I have no problem with the general principle of using exotic animal hide or other carcass parts to make clothing, most especially when the wearer does it themselves.

So, had Miss Kardashian actually gone out to the Everglades and quickly and painlessly slayed a non-native python -- thus doing her part to help the ecosystem while getting her desired raw materials -- I would certainly have no quarrel with that. 

I do have ethical/moral objections to some -- many, actually -- specific instances of how animal fur/skin trade and fashion is often done.

Skinning an animal alive, for example, is, IMO, completely needless and horridly cruel. Kill the animal quickly, and skin it dead.  

I love cherry pie. 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 9:31PM, farragut wrote:

At this season, I think peach takes precedence.

Does where I live--in the Peach State.