I don't have to, I'm not claiming it specifically includes animals, or excludes humans.
Thats exactly what you claim. You said the hyena is cruel.
Again, no dictionairy says it is limited to humans or animals, so there is no reason to think the word isn't applicable to both.
Ive ex[plained multiple times why its not applicable. Its a human conncept.
See, you are completely off. The hyena's don't eat the lion cubs, they just kill them to eliminate future competition.
LMAO, no they dont my freind. wheres your source? Male lions kill other females existing cubs to ensure she will mate with him, and
to ensure the female devotes full care to his cubs, e.g milk supply/time, so that his genes survive.
Thats instinctive self preservation and again, the lion has no concept of cruelty.
No predator species kills the cubs of another predator species to limit competition.
This is false. Both lions and hyenas prey on the other species for food.
Seems like a willful choice for own gain. Not a direct survival instinct.
LMAO again. Isnt anything an animal does for its own gain, a survival mechanism for self preservation.?
The hyena doesn't know the concept of cruelty, but it is a perfect word to describe the behavior, and a prime example of animals not playing
This is my point, The hyena is not cruel, its your subjective human perception only.
Your projecting human perception onto natutre.
Again you are adding things and making stuff up.
No, I am not.
Lion cubs are vulnerable to predators such as hyenas and leopards but the most significant threat comes from other lions. When a new male
coalition takes over a pride it is often confronted by the cubs of the males they defeated. Males have no time to spare for protecting the offspring
of their predecessors because their own time with a pride is limited. Females will not mate again until their cubs are at least 18 months of age;
therefore, males kill all the young cubs in their new pride in order to bring the females back to reproductive readiness. Older cubs and sub-adults
stand a chance, however, because they can often escape from infanticidal males. These cubs are evicted and must fend for themselves although
occasionally their mothers will leave with them and remain apart from the pride until the cubs reach independence
Ever see cat playing with a mouse before it kills it. There's no survival need for it.
Predictable. I was waiting for that. your wrong, there is. Its instinctive hunting behaviour. Only domesticates are more likely not to eat it, because
they arnt hungry, but millions of years of instinct kick in, because in the wild they are opportunistic hunters.
It enjoys mauling it's prey, it's playing. It may not understand the suffering it causes, but I can describe it as cruel
Enjoyment is another human concept. No evidence there is any particular pleasure in it. And yes, you can describe it as cruel, your perogative, but it
still isnt as far as the animal is concerned. You must be aware of cruelty to be capable of it. Cruelty by its nature is subjective.
The poster I originally responded to, claimed that animals are better than humans, said so from a human standpoint, describing animals from a
human concept, so when I respond back to him, I can't describe the other side of their behavior from a human standpoint?
Again correct, you are both ascribing human concepts to them. They are neither better nor worse, they are what they are.
Better, or worse, is judgement by the observer, subjective measurement using human perceptions.
The dictionairy definition I posted also had an example of the word cruel:
-a cruel accident
Now did the accident have full reasoning of the pain and suffering it caused? Did the accident cause it willfully, with the pure intent of causing
pain and suffering?
Correct, again, human labelling , an accident is an accident, an animal is an animal.
The discussion is over, it is clear that cruel is a perfectly good word to describe violent, brute things, behavior or situations without the
need for conscious rational intent behind it.
So It seems. It was the other persons lack of rational intent, aka his subjective perception that you argued against.
I have merely offered a subjective rational perspective of my own, in response.
Again. Thankyou for your contribution.
[edit on 20-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]
[edit on 20-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]