FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is this fair?





Noremac
I read a story today - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/11/2540899.htm

Basically it goes like this -

Two Aussies get drunk, decide to go swimming in a well-known croc infested river.

One gets eaten.

Croc 'suspected' of eating the man gets shot and killed.

Now, lets assume we know the croc ate the guy.

Is it fair to destroy the croc? I mean this river is well known to have crocodiles, and these people were stupid enough to go swimming.

In my opinion you can't blame an animal for being instinctive, if the crocodile came into our homes or towns, then I think it would make sense to kill it, but in its own territory?

Who do we think we are.
apple
well humans think they are in charge of everything. always bold faced and think they can do what they want when they want with no consequences. Evil or Very Mad
andersonic
Shouldn't have been killed. Just mankind at it's finest 'We can kill you, therefore we will'.

Understandable if the croc came into a town and started a rampage, but that was where it lived, they shouldn't have been swimming there, if anything the other man should be shot for being so stupid. Smile
Insanity
I think something similar happened in San Francisco, where tigers escaped the zoo and attacked a visitor. They ended up shooting and killing the tiger, which is sad, but I suppose it's different in that nobody knew the tiger was loose and they just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't think the crocodile should've been shot simply because it was suspected of attacking the man. I'm sure PETA is going to be all over this soon.
Diablosblizz
Quote:
Daly River policeman Dean Lynch says Parks and Wildlife shot one crocodile overnight, but he could not yet confirm whether there is any sign that it is the croc responsible for the attack.


That just shows that they technically could have killed an innocent Croc. Not saying it's true, and it is very unfair but that's life people. There's nothing we can do about it.
SonLight
"Fair"? I don't think that applies here. When human lives are in danger, animals interests have to give way. When human lives are not in danger, then moral behavior requires that we consider animal interests

In this case, the crocidile would NOT be killed as "punishment", or any similar idea. The reason for killing it, instead, is that if it ate a human once, it was likely to do it again.

Dogs are commonly shot if they eat a chicken. It is believed that once they have tasted chicken, they will seek it out again. In that case, whether to shoot the dog is a judgment call. People may reasonably differ about the wisdom of shooting it, but neither choice is immoral. When people's lives are at risk, it would be immoral if an animal likely to kill someone is spared, even if the risk were fairly small.
Parkour_Jarrod
I do not think this is fair, as said before, it was the Crocodile's territory not the humans they were stupid for swimming in said river... it has signs about crocs and not to swim in it...
PennyLane
I also think the croc has nothing to do with it... Those drunken guys should have better checked where they were (or at least not get drunk...) It's like people who tease dogs and then they are surprised that the dogs bite...
tchaunt
In my opinion, and obviously others', the croc shouldn't have been killed. An animal that it could catch easily stumbled upon it, and it took advantage of the opportunity. Are humans not the same? Do we not take advantage of situations to better ourselves? I think killing the croc was unjust.
allandu
i agree with the person above, some just tease tease tease the dogs till the dogs get pissed off and attack/kill the person who does that and ends up getting put to sleep, thats injustice the dog was just stepping out for himself.
There have been numerous "accidents" happened where whole species have been killed z.z
and those species have been from 2-10 specimens who just defend themselves(there might be more specimens too Razz i just thought 10 would fit)

And PETA cant do anything about it... The goverment willjust say, he defended himself and killed that croc and so on :/ We live in a "happy" and "good" world.
william
Absolutely unfair. If an animal is out of control and posing a threat to human beings outside of the said animal's own territory, then attacking it can be acceptable. However, in this case, it was known that the river was full of crocodiles. Why is the crocodile to blame? It's doing what it would naturally do. Worse, we don't even know if the killed crocodile was the one responsible for the consumption.

That crocodile really is not to blame, and it was definitely an unfair thing.
Dollyehs
Clearly the guy got eaten by the crocodile, they couldn't of drowned before getting eaten. =P And they were extremelly stupid to have gone to swim there (even if they were drunk) so basically it is their fault because they are going into the crocodile's territory and obviously disturbing them. So why not eat him, lol. I think it is utterly unfair and that they should of left the crocodile be.
ocalhoun


Of course its fair! Also, when a person is run over by a car, the car should be destroyed. And, when you cut yourself with a knife, you should destroy the knife, to make sure you don't cut yourself again with it.
deanhills
I can't stand crocodiles. I really do not know why they are around. They are the most ugly of creatures. I can't see a single redeeming factor in their existence. I once visited a crocodile farm and it just sent the heebie jeebies down my spine. The more crocodiles people can get rid off the happier I am, whether fair or foul, I don't care.
hamza1122
No its not fair. It's the aussies fault. They went into the croc's territory and its their instinct to eat them. THey're starving man. obviously they're gonna eat you. So you don't go swimming in croc infested waters and expect them to swim around you.
jessicawalker
What if, after his taste of human flesh, something came alive within the croc and he devoted the rest of his life to the search for that tasty morsel? What if he became an example to other crocs and there were clans of them roaming, searching for human flesh? Intruding, devouring, DEVASTATING. It could be catastrophic, people.
goutha
Sure that it's not fair!

But, there's maybe a reason for killing the crocodile. Some animals start attacking humains when they try their meat once. Maybe that's the case for this crocodile...
mwsupra
Yea he shouldn't have been killed. They probably looked at the croc as a major threat that needed to be eliminated (since he killed someone) but they never take into account that the croc was just doing what it was made to do in its territory.
Diablosblizz
jessicawalker wrote:
What if, after his taste of human flesh, something came alive within the croc and he devoted the rest of his life to the search for that tasty morsel? What if he became an example to other crocs and there were clans of them roaming, searching for human flesh? Intruding, devouring, DEVASTATING. It could be catastrophic, people.


That is completely true, and for all we know it is true. Animals learn, and as they do they become curious. It's basically like human life, the only thing is we have power over them.
Noremac
lol to ocalhoun and deanhills,

but seriously, all this crap about the croc getting a taste for human flesh.

I still wouldnt blame the croc, I'd blame the deuchebag for swimming in the river saying "eat me"

Now if the croc did decide to leave its territory and go on a bloodthirsty rampage(not a chance in hell) I'm sure we can handle it, but to kill it in its own territory for simply giving in to a juicy steak meal is wrong. ITS WRONG! WWRRROOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG!

I love steak.
ted1986
That is right, you can blame animal.
Arty
That depends, is it fair to blame the animal for eating a human?

Well first of all, it's not fair.
But then again, if say, a fly bit you, you would slap it, right? So what's the difference?
Lucy
Although the croc was just being territorial, some drunk idiots decided to swim in it. So one could say that if it happens once, it may happen again. And society believes that human life is valued far greater then that of an animal. A croc that has been prooven to kill is a croc that kills, so, yes it was fair to shoot the animal if it made everyone feel safe. Twisted Evil
SpellcasterDX
SonLight wrote:
"Fair"? I don't think that applies here. When human lives are in danger, animals interests have to give way. When human lives are not in danger, then moral behavior requires that we consider animal interests

In this case, the crocidile would NOT be killed as "punishment", or any similar idea. The reason for killing it, instead, is that if it ate a human once, it was likely to do it again.

Dogs are commonly shot if they eat a chicken. It is believed that once they have tasted chicken, they will seek it out again. In that case, whether to shoot the dog is a judgment call. People may reasonably differ about the wisdom of shooting it, but neither choice is immoral. When people's lives are at risk, it would be immoral if an animal likely to kill someone is spared, even if the risk were fairly small.
Did you read the post/article completely? The river was well known to have crocodiles, hence, they shouldn't have been stupid enough to jump in there. It's not the crocodile's fault. It's just following it's natural instincts.

Anyway I don't believe it's fair. As I said above, the croc can't think, it just goes on its instincts.
deanhills
SpellcasterDX wrote:
Anyway I don't believe it's fair. As I said above, the croc can't think, it just goes on its instincts.
I still have to wonder about exactly what benefits the crocodiles have, and why humans can't have the first choice of the river. Just imagine the many places that humans can't feel safe in because of crocodiles. At one point of my life I lived in Southern Africa and there were so many people killed in the Zambezi River by crocodiles. I can't think of a single redeeming feature in their favour. They do it also in a sneaky way. Their behaviour and way of killing are as ugly as they are.

You are right, crocodiles would live entirely on instinct, and their instinct is to kill. They don't think. They just kill.
Noremac
deanhills wrote:
You are right, crocodiles would live entirely on instinct, and their instinct is to kill. They don't think. They just kill.


As opposed to the human instinct, we don't think. We just do whatever the hell we like because we can. Because we are too stupid to respect nature and stay out of crocodile-infested rivers.

Doesn't make it right.
Hogwarts
Noremac wrote:
As opposed to the human instinct, we don't think. We just do whatever the hell we like because we can. Because we are too stupid to respect nature and stay out of crocodile-infested rivers.


I believe you may be being a bit self-righteous, right now Rolling Eyes

Yes, we understand that it is of your opinion that killing the crocodile was wrong. However, it is of a majority of people who's opinion will actually have an effect on said issue, of whose opinions are generally based on evidence, that if a crocodile attacks a human, it'll likely choose humans as prey again.

Now, the question has also been raised of what purpose does it even serve to keep that crocodile alive. The species serves no purpose in human survival. We're humans. We're driven by our own need for survival. Does that, effectively, mean that killing it to ensure our continued survival is just? I personally would say so. Were we amounting revenge by killing it? No. Therefore, it can be assumed that the end has justified the means.

Also, one could annotate that it is due to human generosity that the crocodile even is alive to begin with. That crocodile could be currently serving a much better purpose as a utility to human society; for example, as food. However, due to us extending our generosity to protect said animal, it currently is not. Perhaps one could even say that we simply retracted our generosity by killing it?
gcaughill
Noremac wrote:
I read a story today - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/11/2540899.htm

Basically it goes like this -

Two Aussies get drunk, decide to go swimming in a well-known croc infested river.

One gets eaten.


I'm not sure if 'is it fair?' is the right question. The real question should be 'would the croc kill humans again?' if it would, then it may have to be moved or killed.

'Revenge' killing a croc is kind of dumb though if that was their motive.
deanhills
Hogwarts wrote:
Also, one could annotate that it is due to human generosity that the crocodile even is alive to begin with. That crocodile could be currently serving a much better purpose as a utility to human society; for example, as food. However, due to us extending our generosity to protect said animal, it currently is not. Perhaps one could even say that we simply retracted our generosity by killing it?
I like your thinking Hogwarts. Handbags and shoes are nice too when they are made of crocodile leather. Smile
biljap
I don’t think it is fair, animal has its nature and you can do much about it... But people should do everything they can to secure area where it might be dangerous and educate others how to behave...

Swimming in a river well known to have crocodiles is one of the most stupid things I’ve heard lately... Shocked
tchaunt
jessicawalker wrote:
What if, after his taste of human flesh, something came alive within the croc and he devoted the rest of his life to the search for that tasty morsel? What if he became an example to other crocs and there were clans of them roaming, searching for human flesh? Intruding, devouring, DEVASTATING. It could be catastrophic, people.


I haven't been on for a while. To my delight, when I came on today, I saw the quoted post. More or less, you just described humans! Our entire history is full of contorted lies about how our exploring (destroying) our humble home (slave of a planet) was so peaceful (disgusting, and inhumane). We all have death in our past. Every human has the potential to kill. So, my question is, should all humans be killed? This crocodile had the potential to kill, and people--being as arrogant as they are--felt they had to kill it.
standready
That is just not right. The humans were warned about crocs (should not matter warned or not). Croc was just doing what comes natural to crocs - survive.
Just think if we killed humans for killing things including other humans! Life would be good.
kerryworkman
I personally don't think that it is fair to blame an animal for doing what is in it's nature to do, especially when it's territory is being encroched upon by a couple of annoying drunks.

Hell, I might have been tempted to eat them if I cought them swimming in my pool on my property, and I don't even like the taste of human flesh .... that much :p

My point is that, I can shoot and kill someone trespassing on my property, and not be executed or even put in jail for it, and yet we don't extend that same treatment to the Croc's, who were just protecting their homes.
deanhills
tchaunt wrote:
jessicawalker wrote:
What if, after his taste of human flesh, something came alive within the croc and he devoted the rest of his life to the search for that tasty morsel? What if he became an example to other crocs and there were clans of them roaming, searching for human flesh? Intruding, devouring, DEVASTATING. It could be catastrophic, people.


I haven't been on for a while. To my delight, when I came on today, I saw the quoted post. More or less, you just described humans! Our entire history is full of contorted lies about how our exploring (destroying) our humble home (slave of a planet) was so peaceful (disgusting, and inhumane). We all have death in our past. Every human has the potential to kill. So, my question is, should all humans be killed? This crocodile had the potential to kill, and people--being as arrogant as they are--felt they had to kill it.

Perhaps you missed Hogwarts' posting. One about the survival of species:
Hogwarts wrote:
Now, the question has also been raised of what purpose does it even serve to keep that crocodile alive. The species serves no purpose in human survival. We're humans. We're driven by our own need for survival. Does that, effectively, mean that killing it to ensure our continued survival is just? I personally would say so. Were we amounting revenge by killing it? No. Therefore, it can be assumed that the end has justified the means.

Also, one could annotate that it is due to human generosity that the crocodile even is alive to begin with. That crocodile could be currently serving a much better purpose as a utility to human society; for example, as food. However, due to us extending our generosity to protect said animal, it currently is not. Perhaps one could even say that we simply retracted our generosity by killing it?
Noremac
Hogwarts wrote:


Yes, we understand that it is of your opinion that killing the crocodile was wrong. However, it is of a majority of people who's opinion will actually have an effect on said issue, of whose opinions are generally based on evidence, that if a crocodile attacks a human, it'll likely choose humans as prey again.

Now, the question has also been raised of what purpose does it even serve to keep that crocodile alive. The species serves no purpose in human survival. We're humans. We're driven by our own need for survival. Does that, effectively, mean that killing it to ensure our continued survival is just? I personally would say so.


I figured that forums would generally be the perfect place to put my opinion. If I thought my opinion held any power I sure wouldn't be posting it here, would I?

I would agree with you if we were killing to insure our survival, but we are not. Ensuring our survival would be to stay out of the damn river, seen as, based on evidence, a crocodile will not leave its territory to hunt regardless of whether it has tasted human blood, especially because it softens all its prey in the river before eating it.
Hogwarts
Noremac wrote:
I would agree with you if we were killing to insure our survival, but we are not. Ensuring our survival would be to stay out of the damn river, seen as, based on evidence, a crocodile will not leave its territory to hunt regardless of whether it has tasted human blood, especially because it softens all its prey in the river before eating it.

No, however more people would have adventured there eventually, anyway. People in groups are generally safe enough to do so, even. However, now it probably considers humans prey, it's a threat. We're simply removing that threat, which is vastly cheaper and takes less effort than anything else. After all, you need to remember that crocodiles (at least, in Australia) only exist because there are laws in place to protect them.
carlospro7
so they shot the crocodile in it's own territory? That's just dumb. I wonder if it was done as a public response, as in people were mad, and so the croc was killed in order to make people happy. I also wonder what they were thinking before they jumped in. "Dude, lets jump into that croc infested river. Yeah, we couldn't possibly get eaten or anything like that."
Noremac
Hogwarts wrote:

No, however more people would have adventured there eventually, anyway. People in groups are generally safe enough to do so, even. However, now it probably considers humans prey, it's a threat. We're simply removing that threat, which is vastly cheaper and takes less effort than anything else. After all, you need to remember that crocodiles (at least, in Australia) only exist because there are laws in place to protect them.


Well as far as I'm concerned, we can't decide to destroy an animal because it requires less effort than say, putting fences up or signs. It's this mentality that has put the world in the crisis it's in today.

You say the crocodile should be killed because it considers us prey.

And it is justified because we consider the crocodile to be an inconvenience.

see anything in that?
Hogwarts
Killing off the crocodile isn't just a convenience, it's also an insurance. Will that crocodile attack anybody again? Will its existence result in any more crocodiles being created? The crocodile is simply an unnecessary threat to begin with.
missdixy
This isn't fair at all. Really it's just people being a bunch of idiots and (maybe?) trying to bring some sort of comfort to the family.
jessicawalker
jessicawalker wrote:
What if, after his taste of human flesh, something came alive within the croc and he devoted the rest of his life to the search for that tasty morsel? What if he became an example to other crocs and there were clans of them roaming, searching for human flesh? Intruding, devouring, DEVASTATING. It could be catastrophic, people.


I was being ironic. Of course it's not fair.
Wolf1918
deanhills wrote:
You are right, crocodiles would live entirely on instinct, and their instinct is to kill. They don't think. They just kill.


Yes, I agree, crocs don't think. Not as humans do. And yes they survive by instinct. Their instinct tells them to eat when they are hungry. Unlike humans who once slaughtered entire herds of American Bison, just for the fun (!?!) of it, a croc hunts, kills and eats when it is hungry. NOT because it's an evil monster that takes pleasure in torturing and killing another creature.

Trust me, folks, in a survival situation, you would hunt, kill and eat too. (hopefully not your own species, but any other you can get your hands on.)

Just my 2 cents,
Chad
tchaunt
I'm sorry Jessica. I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. My bad. Smile
jessicawalker
Oh no. You got it. Ironic, not necessarily sarcastic. I was just stating my opinion a little more clearly for the less intelligent people out there. Not to sound rude. But let's face it, there are some. There are quite a few, really. Like, billions, I reckon. Anywho...

I think it's probably not fair for any animal to be killed by us. I don't think MORALLY, there's anything wrong with it. I don't particularly CARE. But I would say it's not ever really fair. To the dying party, anyways.
tony
It's a sad story. But it is true that alcohol will impair your judgement like that. Must be careful...
Melacos
Yea, it just shows that animals (especially the ones we aren't eating on a regular basis) are dispensable. Even though a lot of energy and resources is spent on animal preservation, and not least the powerful symbolism centered around it, what it comes down to, is that pragmatism and generally accepted romantic notions do not always go hand in hand.
What isn't a central part of the (politically) rational economical logic, can be disposed of when not fitting into (or necessary to) the structure of society. I.e. we don't destroy a bridge after a guy has commited suicide from it, or the climate for being responsible for draught and famine. Those are useful - crocs are not.
deanhills
Melacos wrote:
Yea, it just shows that animals (especially the ones we aren't eating on a regular basis) are dispensable. Even though a lot of energy and resources is spent on animal preservation, and not least the powerful symbolism centered around it, what it comes down to, is that pragmatism and generally accepted romantic notions do not always go hand in hand.
What isn't a central part of the (politically) rational economical logic, can be disposed of when not fitting into (or necessary to) the structure of society. I.e. we don't destroy a bridge after a guy has commited suicide from it, or the climate for being responsible for draught and famine. Those are useful - crocs are not.
Crocs don't think. They don't care whether life is fair. They kill. And they kill whether they are hungry or not as they know how to stockpile their food. They will kill at each and every opportunity that comes their way. Their survival depends on it.

I still have to learn what crocs really do for the world. They are nasty and evil creatures. I don't understand why expenses are made to protect them. If the roles were reversed, they would not think twice about killing human beings.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
They kill. And they kill whether they are hungry or not as they know how to stockpile their food. They will kill at each and every opportunity that comes their way. Their survival depends on it.

... could also be used to describe humans ...
Quote:

I still have to learn what crocs really do for the world.

And what do humans "do for the world"?
Quote:

They are nasty and evil creatures.

Yet again, this applies quite well to humans also.
Quote:
I don't understand why expenses are made to protect them. If the roles were reversed, they would not think twice about killing human beings.

Well, for one thing, they're one of the oldest species around, possibly the oldest large species, that deserves a little respect.
An essential part of any true wilderness is that there are animals present that a human would have reason to fear. If you take that away, you take away a key part of the mystique.
Also, this attitude can be taken much too far. It's attitudes like this that almost made the wolf extinct in America, and did make all the dangerous predators extinct in the UK.
If we are to kill crocs because they kill to eat, where will it end? Will we eliminate all predators from the Earth?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
They kill. And they kill whether they are hungry or not as they know how to stockpile their food. They will kill at each and every opportunity that comes their way. Their survival depends on it.

... could also be used to describe humans ...
Quote:

I still have to learn what crocs really do for the world.

And what do humans "do for the world"?
Quote:

They are nasty and evil creatures.

Yet again, this applies quite well to humans also.
Quote:
I don't understand why expenses are made to protect them. If the roles were reversed, they would not think twice about killing human beings.

Well, for one thing, they're one of the oldest species around, possibly the oldest large species, that deserves a little respect.
An essential part of any true wilderness is that there are animals present that a human would have reason to fear. If you take that away, you take away a key part of the mystique.
Also, this attitude can be taken much too far. It's attitudes like this that almost made the wolf extinct in America, and did make all the dangerous predators extinct in the UK.
If we are to kill crocs because they kill to eat, where will it end? Will we eliminate all predators from the Earth?
I'm sorry Ocalhoun, I've seen too many victims of crocs, heard too many sad stories. The only respect I have is to stay out of their way, I have not a single good thing to say about them.

To say that humans are not much better than crocs. This may be applicable to some humans, but definitely as a minority. In overall the human species have much more to offer. Art, beautiful music, discovering new technology, etc etc. No comparison. I'm most relieved that it is the human species which are conserving crocs and cannot imagine them conserving us if the roles had been reversed. We would not have been allowed an existence.
Ghost900
deanhills wrote:
To say that humans are not much better than crocs. This may be applicable to some humans, but definitely as a minority. In overall the human species have much more to offer. Art, beautiful music, discovering new technology, etc etc. No comparison. I'm most relieved that it is the human species which are conserving crocs and cannot imagine them conserving us if the roles had been reversed. We would not have been allowed an existence.


Crocodiles may not have much to offer humans but I doubt that we offer much to Crocodiles as they could care less about our art and music, so if we removed humans than art would be meaningless as humans only offer art to themselves.

Many animals seem to have no use and yet they are all part of a food chain to keep things in balance so I think preserving them is a good idea. I think its sad that we have almost made the Buffalo and other animals extinct because of our living.

I see why they kill a crocodile as they say once it attacks a human it is more likely to attack humans as it loses its natural fear of humans but then I also think that if you walk up to something that has an instinct to eat then it is more your fault then the fault of the animal.

Also as far as crocodiles killing humans being high, it also is true that humans kill animals daily to eat as well so killing for food is a common event.

By the way I don't think animals have the same rights as humans but as heads of the world we should do our part in protecting near extinct animals and making places where animals can live freely. Very Happy
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I'm most relieved that it is the human species which are conserving crocs and cannot imagine them conserving us if the roles had been reversed. We would not have been allowed an existence.

No, we could exist just fine, because a croc wouldn't deliberately seek out and destroy humans because they were dangerous. They're predators, killing and eating is what they do.

What's the difference between crocs and wolves, bears, tigers, lions, pumas, and panthers? Would you want them eliminated from the world as well?
silencet25
Humans kill anything that moves Sad
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'm most relieved that it is the human species which are conserving crocs and cannot imagine them conserving us if the roles had been reversed. We would not have been allowed an existence.

No, we could exist just fine, because a croc wouldn't deliberately seek out and destroy humans because they were dangerous. They're predators, killing and eating is what they do.

What's the difference between crocs and wolves, bears, tigers, lions, pumas, and panthers? Would you want them eliminated from the world as well?
The difference is a complete and utter absence of love. There is no love like that of wolves, bears, tigers, lions, pumas and panthers ... and tenderness between mother and babies. Also beauty to behold, as they are truly beautiful animals. There is total and complete absence of love in crocs. There is a modicum protection of offspring by mother, i.e. guarding eggs, hatching, the basic ones for survival of this ugly species, but then the babies are on their own and may even be eaten by the other crocs. Yuck! A species eating its own offspring .... cannibalism ....
jmlworld
Even the killed crocodile was not confirmed to be the one involved in the attack. The place had probably warning signs around showing the danger of these crocodiles, but the men ignored all. May be because they heavily drunk!

I don't know who is to blame however, may be the guys were unaware of the crocodiles, or we may claim the crocodiles were innocent, but, for sure, someone would make a revenge even on the tinniest creature.

However, the police and the residents of the area are to blame first, they could make the place reserved as a danger zone.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'm most relieved that it is the human species which are conserving crocs and cannot imagine them conserving us if the roles had been reversed. We would not have been allowed an existence.

No, we could exist just fine, because a croc wouldn't deliberately seek out and destroy humans because they were dangerous. They're predators, killing and eating is what they do.

What's the difference between crocs and wolves, bears, tigers, lions, pumas, and panthers? Would you want them eliminated from the world as well?
The difference is a complete and utter absence of love. There is no love like that of wolves, bears, tigers, lions, pumas and panthers ... and tenderness between mother and babies. Also beauty to behold, as they are truly beautiful animals. There is total and complete absence of love in crocs. There is a modicum protection of offspring by mother, i.e. guarding eggs, hatching, the basic ones for survival of this ugly species, but then the babies are on their own and may even be eaten by the other crocs. Yuck! A species eating its own offspring .... cannibalism ....

Uh, actually bears and lions have also been known to eat their own young. The other species too, perhaps, but I'm not sure about them.

So in order to deserve existence, a creature must love?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
So in order to deserve existence, a creature must love?
I think for me it is more absence of anything positive, including love in the crocs. I can't find a single redeeming factor for them to be in excistence.
Parkour_Jarrod
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
So in order to deserve existence, a creature must love?
I think for me it is more absence of anything positive, including love in the crocs. I can't find a single redeeming factor for them to be in excistence.


What about the fact that without them Australian creeks and rivers would die because of over population in Carp? They kill alot of them, and other wise, well, corrsion and everything would kill it all because of the carp..
SonLight
Parkour_Jarrod wrote:


What about the fact that without them Australian creeks and rivers would die because of over population in Carp? They kill alot of them, and other wise, well, corrsion and everything would kill it all because of the carp..


True, crocodiles and most other animals, even the ones we find repulsive, usually have a place in nature and help maintain a balance. If the crocs were all killed, it would result in a change that most of us would find unpleasant.

On the other hand, after a period of time, a new balance would be established. While it is wise to avoid messing with the population balance when we don't understand it well, remember that many of the processes of nature create new environments which may initially procuce chaos, but in the end the result is a greater variety of wildlife.

When human interests are at stake, we are free to deal with animals as we choose, and I don't see any moral problem with that. But we ought to study the situation and not act in haste. For example, it might be wise to kill all crocodiles within a certain area because they pose a threat to humans or because we want to develop land near them. The issue of "fairness" is not relevant to such decisions, but if we don't plan wisely and leave some areas wild, we will eventually pay a high price for our lack of respect for the balance of nature.
Greatking
its not fair for animals to eat people up. i gues there should signs indicating areas with dangerous animals so people can be extra careful. cause you cant always be careful even when we try.
deanhills
SonLight wrote:
If the crocs were all killed, it would result in a change that most of us would find unpleasant.
I'm very interested to know exactly what the change would be? The only one that comes to mind is that they are useful in keeping human population down. Smile Do you know what the changes would be if they were no longer around?
FrightKnight
The croc is just doing his/her thing. Poor animal. Who told them to shoot the croc anyway? The one who shot the croc and the one who ordered him to shoot the croc (if there is any) doesn't think. Too bias to their fellow human.

Love the animals!
snowynight
Well i don't think it fair to kill the croc. There are so few crocs now, and we should protect them.
Hogwarts
snowynight wrote:
Well i don't think it fair to kill the croc. There are so few crocs now, and we should protect them.

To what purpose does protecting crocodiles serve society?
skygaia
I know it's not easy to say an answer simply. but if I have to choose one between "fair" and "unfair"
my choice is "fair". we know those guys had to think more. but human life is the most valuable one.
some animal could die instead of his boss. but some people couldn't die for any animals.
deanhills
skygaia wrote:
I know it's not easy to say an answer simply. but if I have to choose one between "fair" and "unfair"
my choice is "fair". we know those guys had to think more. but human life is the most valuable one.
some animal could die instead of his boss. but some people couldn't die for any animals.
I like this sentiment. It will especially be valid when you have to confront a crocodile. I agree with Hogwarts, I can't see their purpose at all. It costs money to protect them, and it could cost lives too.
Solon_Poledourus
I'm wondering why people still have to ask why animals need to be protected from extinction. I thought everyone learned this obvious lesson early in life.

The over-hunting of wolves during the 19th century almost made them extinct in north America. The effect this had on the environment was soon realized. Wild grazing animals lost their major natural predator, so they became overpopulated and in turn over grazed the land, which killed the soil. It was many years before the land recovered, and only after the wolf population was protected and bounced back a good deal.

It's easy to think that crocs are useless, but every animal, especially predators, serve a very specific purpose in the ecology of our planet.

Is it fair that the croc was killed? I don't think it's a matter of fairness. It wasn't killed because they found it guilty of a crime punishable by death. When animals kill people, people kill them back. It's to placate some of the distress of the public and the family of the human victim. As long as human society keeps encroaching on land filled with predatory animals, this will continue to happen. The end result will be the extinction of many species, with only a few specimens in zoos. And the ecology will suffer two fold: lack of natural predators, and human "progress".
Related topics
How difficult is to be fair!
Video Projects? They are not fair.
What do you experienced Frihosters consider fair rates?
I am broke
fair/clean/high perfomance sport
Discussion ABOUT “Political Phil: What is [Not] Fair?” topic
Political Philosophy: What is [Not] Fair?
Anyone want a Flat tax?
Chelsea vs Spurs match - John Terry sent off, was it fair?
Elf Fantasy Fair
Dialogue Society Event/food fair-whirling dervish-sufimusic
the website ban me when I use mechanize to grab its content,
Daughtry...Cal State Fair
vanity fair -100 most powerful people-jews
The Fates Are Fair
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.