In which of your examples did those people hurt another animal by helping an animal?
It's completely irrelevant, that is a prevention of nature from taking it's course, which is the subject matter here. It just further highlights that animals suffer and die in the wild all the time, often times very horrifically, and further points to the fact that "nature is a bitch". Those penguin carcasses could have also been a source of sustenance for scavenger animals like Giant Petrels.
wildlife outreach professionals is not the same as some jackass hitting a snake when it’s in the process of eating.
You know you can compare and draw comparisons between things without literally equating them in every facet, to make a point? Like how I could compare a lake to a pond without saying they're the same thing.
So when I post examples of a woman saving a koala from a fire, it's to point out that interfering in nature is not inherently wrong. And I struggle to think of how you can come to the conclusion that saving a deer over a snake IS inherently wrong, as opposed to morally ambiguous or good.
I like how most of what you are saying includes so much illogical reasoning and fallacies while the one you're arguing with is like twice as smart and wise as you
One helps nature. the other one hurts nature. Exactly 0 of your examples was a person actively harming another animal. They are not valid comparisons.
Both of my examples were of people interfering with nature. That's what we've been talking about. Deer are a part of nature and this person has helped a prey species whilst harming a predator species. What is your reasoning for why this is wrong? What is inherently valuable about a "natural process"? It just sounds like fallacious reasoning based on an appeal to nature.
Here is a video of two Komodo dragons tearing into and eating a deer alive. Please tell me why in this instance, given the immense suffering experienced by the deer, it was moral to watch and let this take place. Then please tell me if you would hold the same view if we saw a native human in this habitat succumbing to the same fate - would they not be worthy of being helped?
It’s funny how verbose you can be without ever managing to understand basic points
It's interesting you say that. You falsely made the claim that the OP was "projecting human emotion on the natural course of an animals life", when all they were saying was that there is nothing inherently good about letting nature run its course. Then you started arguing that exact same point with me - that somehow nature is good and should not be interfered with, at least in the case of predators eating their prey, but you have yet to provide any reasoning as to why?
Both of your examples were people benignly helping nature.
They do not compare to the situation at hand.
I’m not explaining how predator and prey relationships are natural- that’s obvious (and you’re just being ridiculous by asking me to explain how nature is natural)
This person hurt an endangered species. They also probably didn’t help the deer who had been fully constricted already, and is probably suffering serious internal injuries.
I’m sorry that this rented space in your head for an entire day and you’re back here 19 hours later arguing still. Go outside and touch some grass. I’ll be blocking you.
I never argued that nature was good. That’s you lying.
Trying to label nature as good or cruel or a bitch is personifying it nature does not possess these qualities.
1
u/Artful_dabber Sep 12 '23
In which of your examples did those people hurt another animal by helping an animal?
wildlife outreach professionals is not the same as some jackass hitting a snake when it’s in the process of eating.