Shark on Shark Rape. How Can We Stand By and Let This Happen?

[Trinity]

You would not have a rational excuse, but you would have a passionate excuse. Again, culture is there to give people the rational means to override their passion. Without culture, passion overrides reason.

I don't think the recent rape incidents are due to autism, I think they are due to passion overriding reason.

[Emuse]

No, you cannot confirm willingness.

It is empirically demonstrable that we use non verbal behaviours from others to gain knowledge of their subjective state.  I've given an example of such a test in my response to Trinity above.  Any skepticism you engage in at this point would leave you in a position of not being able to know that other people around you have minds.  There is a certain irony here. If dismissing non verbal behaviour as an indicator of other minds and emotions leaves us not being able to know how others around us are feeling or even that they have minds at all then this actually supports the case that these are our main indicators.

That's completely false. By your logic, I can then proclaim a robot a willful being, because it shows behavior of some sort(which it is pre-programmed to show). That's sheer absurdity. Just because certain behavior is taking place, doesn't mean there's a will behind it. This behavior could very well be concluded as "the sharks' body need X, when they show Y behavior." There's no need to invoke any WILL at all. And, as I said, you're pretty much assuming the conclusion there. I showed you how behavior does not necessarily imply willingness. All you had is "well, hours of observation!" Well, I may observe a robot all my life, and the fact of it showing behavior and me observing it for a long time won't make it any more willful being.

If my cat jumps on me in the morning, looks me in the eye, puts her paw on my arm and then pushes her head under my hand can I know from her non verbal communication (which she has initiated) that she wants to be stroked? Of course.  If she sits next to window, puts her paw on the latch, looks at me and meows can I know that she wants me to open the window because she wants to go out?  Of course.  If I denied that then I couldn't be sure that any other minds existed at all because I would need to extend that same level of skepticism to everything to avoid special pleading.

I can conclude that, because I wouldn't have any reason to think you lying.

If I don't have a mind then I can't be lying to you either.

.. the fact that something nods and smiles, isn't a proof of willingness. I've had toys that nod and smile. That never convinced me of them being willful beings. I'm not saying behavior CANNOT SHOW willingness, but that behavior ALONE DOES NOT PROVE willingness, because behavior is also consistent with non-willful things(robots can exemplify behavior ; toys can ; cartoon characters in a cartoon animation ; etc.)

Behaviour is most certainly evidence of willingness because once you dismiss it as evidence then you leave yourself in a position of not being able to know if other minds exist at all.  And why on earth would we use behaviours to express intentions to others if they are not evidence for the recipient of the feelings behind them?  I haven't denied that we interpret one behaviour in light of other behaviours.

I'm driving down the slower lane of the motorway when I realise that it turns into an exit road. I want to move into the next lane to avoid leaving the motorway but there is no gap.  I signal, hoping that some kind person will let me in.  The car next to me remains level and doesn't slow down to create a gap.  I look at the driver and see him staring at me and shaking his head.  Can I know just from his various behaviours that he lacks the intention to let me in and more, fully intends to not let me in?  Of course.  The only other logical option is that he has no mind at all.

You know it by you yourself being a human being and expericing personal will, which you can extend to others of your specie.

But that isn't the case as the cat example demonstrates.

It's not solely because you observe others behaving.

What can you do, other than watch others behave?

That may be a reason, but not very conclusive one.

Empirical studies demonstrate otherwise. 

The same applies to animal behavior - just because they show behavior, doesn't mean they possess personal will. It could be in support of that conclusion, but when coupled with something additional, for this premise on its own is not sufficient to arrive at "animals have personal will!" Because something showing behavior is also consistent with non-willfulness.

Its based on observing a range of behaviours in context.  I've never denied that.  But it is still most certainly based on an observation of behaviour.

[Emuse]

You would not have a rational excuse, but you would have a passionate excuse. Again, culture is there to give people the rational means to override their passion. Without culture, passion overrides reason.

I don't think the recent rape incidents are due to autism, I think they are due to passion overriding reason.

I would not have a rational excuse only because the woman's non verbal communication should leave me in no doubt concerning her subjective state.

[Trinity]

I would not have a rational excuse only because the woman's non verbal communication should leave me in no doubt concerning her subjective state.

Passion without reason overrides verbal and non-verbal communication. That is why we don't let people drink and drive, for example.

[Emuse]

I would not have a rational excuse only because the woman's non verbal communication should leave me in no doubt concerning her subjective state.

Passion without reason overrides verbal and non-verbal communication. That is why we don't let people drink and drive, for example.

Are you suggesting that getting turned on compromises sensory input in the same way that drinking does?

[Trinity]

Are you suggesting that getting turned on compromises sensory input in the same way that drinking does?

The comparison is not with regard to sensory input, but to the ability to reason. Drugs and passion have a similar effect on human reasoning faculties. This is also why advertisers appeal to your passions in order to bypass your reasoning faculties. People often experience buyer's remorse when they purchase a product based on passion instead of based on reason.

[neopolitan]

I think we are horrible human beings for not stepping in and stopping this shark rape.  We could easily extract the seaman from the male shark and transfer it to the female shark, and thus stop the shark rape once and for all.  But we don't.

Why not just get a new seaman and feed him to the female shark?  Seems less of a bother to the male shark.

It might be a bit of a bother to the seaman though.

[neopolitan]

I think it is horrible that we know that sharks are raping each other. . . but we don't do anything about it.  How can we, as decent human beings, stand by and let sharks keep raping each other?

Warning!  Shark Rape is Graphic!

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/shark-week/videos/shark-mating/

This has to be one of the silliest posts I have seen in a while.  And the carry-on afterwards almost makes the OP look like he's offended that he's not allows to rape while sharks are (another monumentally stupid argument admittedly, but I can't use that as a guide as to whether it's the argument or not).

In the clip, it's made clear that the female shark consents.  The biting of the fin looks rough to us, but it's not rape by any means.  If she didn't like it, she'd most likely attack the male (noting that they are smaller than she is).

You should see cats mating.  The female can kill a male if he's not careful (despite being slightly larger, the male is focused on doing his business and can react a little to slowly to the female's frenzied attempts to not be mated).  And when they are connected, it's apparently quite painful, because the cat penis is barbed preventing it being removed until he's finished his delivery (on top of that the stud will have a good mouthful of the queen's neck ruff, sometimes enough to puncture the skin, but not always).

[Questions11]

Ducks are probably worse.  Sometimes the female dies from the forced copulation.

[Steve B]

Man. . . these animals are terrible!  How come we don't stop them!    We should totally feel guilty.

[Questions11]

Id o pry for an end to the horror of nature through the return of Christ.  And I might interfere with nature to feed birds, rescue a forlorn beast, act in a more green manner, or whatever.  So I think I am doing at least some small thing.  But it's not something I think can be solved easily.  Not yet, anyway.

[Steve B]

Id o pry for an end to the horror of nature through the return of Christ.  And I might interfere with nature to feed birds, rescue a forlorn beast, act in a more green manner, or whatever.  So I think I am doing at least some small thing.  But it's not something I think can be solved easily.  Not yet, anyway.

But that cameraman in the OP. . . he should be ashamed of himself.  He had a chance to do something and he didn't.  He's totally sinful.    I can't even believe the cameraman's indifference.  Shame on him. 

[Questions11]

I'm not convinced that allowing shark sex to occur naturally is worse than involvement.  However, in other situations you may indeed have a case.  For example, if I see a drowning dog, I think I have a moral obligation to attempt to save it (if it is easy to do so).

[Steve B]

I'm not convinced that allowing shark sex to occur naturally is worse than involvement.  However, in other situations you may indeed have a case.  For example, if I see a drowning dog, I think I have a moral obligation to attempt to save it (if it is easy to do so).

You are obviously a "doggist" when you ought to be more of a "sharkist."  And why should your decision to intervene hinge on whether or not it is "easy to do so?"

Your bias toward dog suffering rather than shark suffering is shameful my friend.  All animal suffering should be stopped whenever we have the power to do so.  We can't just pick and choose which animal suffrage is acceptable based on our subjective moral comfort levels.

p.s. I'm obviously playing devils advocate don't take it personal.  Just keep rolling with it. 

[Questions11]

You are obviously a "doggist" when you ought to be more of a "sharkist."

 

Not at all.  If I saw a shark suffocating on land I'd try and save it as much as the dog.

And why should your decision to intervene hinge on whether or not it is "easy to do so?"

Because humans are more valuable, and a certain amount of danger or discomfort for a human is morally worse than failure to intervene in something involving animals.  Also, not all animals are equally valuable.  Additionally, pragmatics dictates whether one could realistically intervene or not anyway.

Your bias toward dog suffering rather than shark suffering is shameful my friend

I have no such bias.  You always seem to want to twist my posts to reflect a pre-conceived argument.  I don't fit into your schema, nor am I inconsistent or biased.  You just don't like my responses because they don't fit into your plan.

I'm obviously playing devils advocate don't take it personal

What I do take personally is your deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of my POV.  Please desist.