Who are the sick bastards violently killing dolphins in the Northern Gulf of Mexico?


Good question. I would like to also know how people could kill cows/ pigs/ chickens.

1 Like

Yeah-- why is this any different from the jackasses who hunt land animals and don’t eat them? – I am fine with anyone who makes full use of the body.

As tragic as this is, and it is indeed heartbreaking, many of the people reading this and lamenting the violence are personally responsible for inflicting orders of magnitude more death and suffering on a daily basis because they like the taste of meat, dairy, and eggs. I don’t understand why what was done to this dolphin is sad, but what is done to literally countless chickens, pigs, cows, research animals (cats, dogs, monkeys, and rodents) is not a problem.

How can you love your pet and this dolphin, and yet have no problem paying money for the carcass of an animal that never saw the sun, was fed a diet of chemicals and garbage, confined in a space so small it cannot sit or lie down, suffocated in ammonia and covered in feces and urine from the cages above and around it, mutilated, and finally, quite likely butchered while still conscious. And I’m not being hyperbolic. Factory farming is the most barbaric, inconceivably cruel, and environmentally destructive endeavor of our times, and hardly a person alive can be bothered to give a shit. And no, there is no such thing as humane meat, it is a myth. 99.9% of animal products, regardless of how they are labeled, come from a factory farm.

The last time I posted something like this pointing out cognitive dissonance, my post was deleted. I humbly ask the moderator, before deleting this, to consider why it isn’t relevant to ask why people can feel moved by the death of this animal, but can’t be asked to think about the deaths they are personally responsible for.


A society that can produce people sick enough to kill these animals for amusement is fucked beyond repair.


Out off the coast of the PNW fishermen shoot seals and otters that mess with their lines all the time. The dead ones roll up on the beach with gunshot wounds regularly if you have ever beach combed out there.

My guess is that it is the similar.

1 Like

How can you love your pet and this dolphin and and have no problem paying money for the carcass of a plant? Same argument. All non-autotrophic life feeds on death. That’s how it works. No heterotroph gets a moral exemption. They are all killers of life.

There are two excellent reasons to see how this dolphin killing is different. 1) the killers are not killing to get food to survive 2) dolphins are much more intelligent than the animals humans normally eat.


Pigs are pretty smart. Pet-grade smart.

…mmmm, bacon…


We’ll just keep an eye out for the youtube video.

The stretch of coastline between Destin and Panama City Beach Florida is known as The Emerald Coast for its stunningly beautiful waters. This area is one of the most popular fishing areas for both commercial and recreational fishermen with hundreds of boats going out daily.

This area is also unique in that it has a permanent and large population of bottle-nosed dolphins that patrol the coastline and do not migrate as other dolphins do. They are protected by local laws against feeding them or getting too close to them as they are large wild animals. Many tourists ignore the laws and feed them anyway and throw them bait and fish from their boats to attract the dolphins closer and for their kids to ‘swim with the dolphins’. Male dolphins can be highly aggressive especially when in mating season and it is very dangerous to swim in the near vicinity to dolphin pods.

One theory is that because local vacationers feed these wild dolphins on a regular basis, they have no reason to migrate away from the area to search for food and additionally they have associated boats with getting easy food.

Another thing to know is that many dolphins have learned that fishing boats mean fish. On many occasions when fishing in the area, I have had my catch stripped by dolphins before I could reel it in the boat. The local boat captains all know this happens to their paying clients and little can be done to prevent it from happening. But lazy dolphins stripping easy fish off of a tourists line costs the boat captains money in lost revenue when tourists report that they had their fish stolen. It would be easy to see why a local captain would want to exact revenge on an animal that is costing him money.


Because they are tasty?

I also see a huge difference between quickly killing an animal who was only born to be raised as food, and wounding a wild animal to die a slow death. Of course dolphins and a few other animals get additional cred because of their higher intelligence.

Anyway - to the original question, it was probably these guys:

Your argument relies on amorality, and if we follow your logic then we should also eat people. The reason we don’t eat people is because we make a moral decision not to do so. Eating animals and their eggs and milk are not necessary, it is a cultural preference. The decision not to do so is also a moral one.

I’m not sure how to respond to your intimation that plants are like animals, so I will have to urge you to research Wikipedia or participate in a remedial biology course.

I in turn would urge you to get a doctorate in biology (as I have) before attempting to pontificate on biology. One of the things it teaches you is that all life on earth is part of one lineage, sharing many of the same genes. Presumably the “moral” component in avoiding eating animals is based on this relation, just as the avoidance of cannibalism is. But plants are also our relations and it isn’t surprising (given their genetic similarity to animals) that we are beginning to learn that plant behaviors are far more complicated than we once thought, and it becomes problematical to say that the life of a plant is less worthy of respect than, say, that of a chicken or fish.

There are worthy reasons to limit one’s intake of animal products, such as the the large carbon footprint involved in raising food animals, the potential health benefits in avoiding red meat, and so on, but the morality argument is not very convincing. It’s playing this card that makes normal people think PETA is a bunch of crazy people.


Isn’t the standard vegan argument that distinctions between humans and other animals are also trivial and that’s why animals deserve rights once only thought to belong to humans? It’s the same deal, only with more of the tree of life. At best you can argue that you should eat things less related to yourself, which nearly everybody agrees to a degree (most people frown on eating other people or primates). Beyond that, the cutoff is purely arbitrary.


I’m not a vegetarian, or a vegan, but I can say that in principle I agree with the argument that one shouldn’t eat anything that’s likely to experience pain. I eat a lot of animals, and I don’t really like thinking about their provenance, but I can at least see the pain argument bearing weight and being at least somewhat valid, if not completely ironclad.

The pain argument itself comes from humanism, as far as I’ve known. Trying not to cause suffering, and trying to follow preference utilitarianism pretty naturally leads to vegetarianism of some kind if you want to apply it with consistency. I’m just not a very good humanist, although it’s the moral philosophy I agree most with. Humanism and most of preference utilitarianism.


So let’s say I accept your assertion that I should be as concerned about the feelings of plants as I am about animals. First, the production of a pound of meat requires several pounds of plant material. So by eating meat, you are consuming far more plants and animals than someone who just eats a straight pound of plant matter. Second, your argument is reductio ad absurdum. You are saying that because we can’t prevent all suffering, it is meaningless to prevent any suffering.

Wouldn’t call the difference between a chicken and a carrot arbitrary, but you’ve got the PhD.

"This is necessary. This is necessary.
Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on… "

1 Like

George Bernard Shaw called meat-eating cannibalism. That is, we are animals eating other animals = cannibalism. I largely agree.

The standard vegan argument I know, as one who professes it, is that we humans shouldn’t abuse other animals. Most people would agree with this sentiment, but while still wearing animal skins and, of course, eating animals and their secretions. I cannot tolerate these sorts of exemptions, my sense of logic and justice will not allow.

1 Like

Absolutely. This is the argument that reveals “plants have feelings, too” as juvenile thinking. What these types of proponents are truly trying to do is discredit rational arguments for not harming other animals, justify bad behavior, and not change their lifestyles.

1 Like