News Article

PETA Starts "Whaling" About Assassin's Creed IV's Animal Cruelty

Posted by Damien McFerran

Not a joke this time, presumably?

Animal rights orgnaisation PETA is no stranger to using video games to further its cause — it infamously attacked Mario for wearing a Tanooki suit, but later admitted that it was just a joke. Now, the group has its sights set on Ubisoft's recently-annoinced Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag for "glorifying" the killing of whales.

Here's PETA's statement:

Whaling—that is, shooting whales with harpoons and leaving them to struggle for an hour or more before they die or are hacked apart while they are still alive—may seem like something out of the history books, but this bloody industry still goes on today in the face of international condemnation, and it’s disgraceful for any game to glorify it. PETA encourages video game companies to create games that celebrate animals—not games that promote hurting and killing them.

Ubisoft's title is clearly aiming for historical accuracy, and the fact of the matter is that whaling was commonplace in the period in which Black Flag is set. But does the fact that it features in the game mean that the company is somehow condoning it? Leave a comment to let us know what you think.


From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (184)



NintendoMaster said:

According to PETA, you would think virtually killing animals in a video game is as bad as actually killing animals. Next thing you know they'll attack Pokemon for some ridiculous reason.

Edit: Forgot they already did!



MasterGraveheart said:

Dear Peta. Nobody cares about your worthless, meaningless opinion you worthless, meaningless people. Just because hunting a whale is a game event doesn't mean the player is going to celebrate whale killing in their personal lives. Just as there is ZERO empirical evidence suggesting that video games create murderers, there is ZERO empirical evidence suggesting that video games create animal hunters or people who /want/ to hurt animals for the sake of it. You fail.

@NintendoMaster: They already did. >.>



TheRegginator said:

"PETA encourages video game companies to create games that celebrate animals—not games that promote hurting and killing them."

That's what Pokemon does. What did PETA do? Attack Nintendo for it.



Bass_X0 said:

The only games they should go after are those hunting games which got us all riled up in NintendoLife's recent review.



Fudgewhizzle said:

Man, I'm gonna enjoy harpooning some whales in AC4! And then selling all the blubber and meat for some hard cash. <3



BenAV said:

It's a game, it's not harming anyone... this kind of thing is really stupid.
It's not like everyone who plays Assassin's Creed 4 is going to go out and start killing whales afterwards.



solcross said:

The handful of people I know that support PETA are vapid slacktivists. On the flip side I know tons of people who push for animal rights, but they all know better than to get behind PETA.



Randomname19 said:

This is so stupid.There's a book based almost entirely on killing a whale( Moby Dick).They didn't said anything about that but they attack a game were happens to be whales?



TreesenHauser said:

Don't give these idiots any attention, guys. This is the same organization that openly admits to killing hundreds of sheltered could-be pets every year on the basis of "not being wanted."



Shock_Tart said:

"PETA encourages video game companies to create games that celebrate animals—not games that promote hurting and killing them."

now shut up peta. stop whining about the work of ficton because you cannot change reality, let me play my assassins creed games in peace.



Chrono_Cross said:

I actually agree with PETA here. There's a difference between hunting an animal and torturing an animal. In Assassin's Creed III, it was still awful how you killed animals (especially the rabbits), but he killed them as quickly as he could. ACIV is the opposite. Regardless if it's a video game, the realistic graphics are enough to persuade the select few, disturbed users.



Drewroxsox said:

This is a VIDEOGAME! The sooner PETA learns that, the sooner they can shut the hell up, and go deal with real problems. 😡



Einherjar said:

So, no more historical documentarys about time periods where bad things have been done...
As if anyone will say "Yeah, i learned how to hunt a whale in AC4, lets go do it in real life next saturday" -.-



LordJumpMad said:

Oh gawd noes~
Now every child in the world is going to go hunt whales, since its easy to kill a 20 ton monster of an animal.



Nintenjoe64 said:

PETA are such classic SEGA fanboys. They used to love Sonic, freeing the animals and Ecco the Dolphin being a dolphin. Now Sega are gone they just hate on all the other companies.

Worse kind of trolls. Let's unite to stop them!!



Chrono_Cross said:

I don't think anyone here quite understands PETA's logic. Of course no one's going to go out and kill a whale because of this. Though, this is graphic material and is quite disturbing at that.

Torturing whales isn't cool, people.



LordJumpMad said:

I think PETA is just saturating the truth of what can be done in the game.
I'm sure the game is not going to go out of its way to show how graphic you can mutilate a while's body, like cutting its fleah, or removing its intestines in a detail way.
It can't be any worst then what they do in While hunters.



XXIV said:

I'm pretty sure that only zoosadists enjoy torturing animals. Its a job, albeit a very archaic one. Sure, it isn't humane, but it's what people did so they could survive.

That said, I do not like this one bit. I'm all for historical accuracy, but this really isn't needed. I mean, what's next? Will we play as an assassin in WWII that tries to kill Hitler while freeing the Jews trapped in internment camps?



nastobi123 said:

do they have anything else thats "actually" good for animals ? for instance, why don't they stop those people who kill dogs for their furs and rhino and elephants for their horns ? come on, what a stupid world we have now, its not like im gonna go hunt for whale after finishing this game. yeah because i have the resources to kill a 50 ton animal..



BJQ1972 said:

While I think PETA go over the top they do have a point. Would it be acceptable if a section of this game involved being a slave trader, and throwing pregnant women overboard?



BlatantlyHeroic said:

@Five-seveN Who said that an animal's life is not as sacred as a human's? You are naive to think in such a way, it's a philosophical question and not one you can take so lightly. Who gave you the right to say who lives and dies? Who gave you the right to decide who is above or below another person? Equals. Everything is equal.



Wyvernqueen said:

@XXIV why would fighting in ww2 and trying to save Jews be bad I swear we try to be so politically correct these days that An actual world changing event that happened is off limits even playing as good guys.



RudysaurusRex said:

Although killing whales is illegal now, it reflects the time and history the game is set in. PETA just feels the need to be in the limelight all the time. What they don't realize is that the target audience of this game, and the internet in general hate them.



SkywardLink98 said:

How about we just rewrite history, so we never hunted any animals, we had world peace, and everyone was always equal. No. We have history to learn from it, not to hide and change it.



TysonOfTime said:

I have to say that PETA and @Chrono_Cross are making excellent points.

The whole but they're making it accurate! defense is a poor one, as I bet you this game won't feature all the accurate yet much worse atrocIties comitted by Pirates.

Why did they put killing Whales in the game? To let people have fun killing Whales. PETA doesn't like that, and in this case, they have a good justification.



SheldonRandoms said:

Oh, so they didn't hunt whales back then, people didn't make a living hunting whales, providing food and money for there family's, I wonder if Peta will hack the game to put themselves into the game, where they protest in front of the whales when you arrive in your ship, I would support this, because then, you can invade there boat and start "hunting" Peta, survival of the fittest Peta, survival of the fittest............



jacksayspurple said:

PETA consistently make me angry with these ridiculous statements. Glorifying whaling and recognizing that it exists are two very different concepts.



C7_ said:

PETAs a hypocritical joke of an organization that attacks popular culture for killing fake animals while killing 89.2% of all animals it took in last year.

They do this ridiculous attack on popular gaming for attention and to rile people up, like when they attacked Mario and Pokemon with flash games that made them look like a bunch of tasteless 5-year-olds that completely misunderstood the issue. Granted, a paragraph statement like this is much better than their efforts previously, but they're still under the impression that if a gamer goes in a video game and plays a whaling minigame, they will immediately buy a pirate ship and try it in real life.

Whaling is a part of history, and Assassin's creed takes place during historical time periods. Don't encourage PETA's silly ad campaigns with your attention.



Chrono_Cross said:


As soon as we can confirm that the whale screams in agony as it's swimming away, it's inhumane.


8 mm is just a movie. You should let your children watch it. That and a few XXX rated movies.

Really, Assassin's Creed III's hunting was bad enough. I remember killing a rabbit and being completely jerked emotionally due to its wimpering scream as I broke its neck. Now I get to see a beautiful whale bleed out and slowly die? I'm scared of whales but that doesn't mean I don't see the stupidity in Ubisoft's sadistic fantasy.

Whethet it's what "they" did in the old days or not, doesn't justify it being fit for entertainment.



Banker-Style said:

Whale I couldn't care less what PETA thinks,as I'll be having a Whale of a time when I'm playing Assassin's Creed IV.



SammyOfMobius said:

PETA, get a life. How sad, suing game companies because you really have nothing else to do. I hate animal cruelty too, in fact I love animals. I spend every day with them. I could never dream of hurting them. I think animals are equal to me even.
Anyways, the animal cruelty in the Assasins Creed game is not happening in real life, so there's no reason to be a bunch of psychos.
There are ACTUAL animals being abused in this world, you know. Why not stop being useless for a change and help those animals? I would, but I'm too young and my parents won't just let me go out in the world yet because I'm only 14. And I agree with them. So how about you quit sitting around on your lazy bums and help those animals instead of suing game companies. Thank you.



rjejr said:

Whale hunting is a large part of American history. Mystic, CT (home of Mystic Pizza), Nantucket, MA (home of a man who's ...), Long Island, NY (home of the Islanders for 3 more years). If Peta wants to protest a videogame let them protest "Deadliest Catch", those guys net a ton of crabs to be eaten at Red Lobster.



TheRavingTimes said:

I'm surprised they haven't said anything about the games that "celebrate animals" considering the fact that Animal Crossing for the 3DS is coming out relatively soon.



Whopper744 said:

An organization that is more concerned about animals then humanity, in my opinion, has issues.



Linkuini said:

To quote Herman Melville: "Enough of this blubbering. We're going a-whaling!"

In all seriousness, though, there's enough problems with real-life whaling practices that I can't be too hard on PETA for being touchy on the subject.



RoryLee said:

If people were not concerned about animals and their safety, you would see alot more of the animals going extinct. Its good to see Organizations stick up for animal cruelty because the animals can't do it themselves.

But I still don't see a problem with hunting whales in a game. Ubi might have a moral of the story to go with it, similiar to how Connor would give thanks to mother nature for providing him with food and supplies that he got from the animals.



Whopper744 said:

@Chrono_Cross . Thanks for calling me ignorant. I really appreciate the respect. I'm just saying priorities are a little messed up. I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt to take care of animals.
@Donjwolf I'm saying humans do take priority over animals. Not sure why you want to put words in my mouth.
@RoryLee I apologize. I must have come across wrong. I just think PETA gets out of hand a lot of the time.



New_3DaSh_XL said:

Dunno how many times I said this, but PETA, who cares? You start complaining about all this, but does anyone actually listen? No. Nintendo doesn't listen, and they don't care about you. Sony doesn't listen, nor do they care. Ubisoft isn't going to listen to you, and THEY don't care either.

Look at the facts, PETA. How many times have I gone out and started killing animals because I played Pokemon, Mario, Zelda, Angry Birds, etc? Oh, that's right... I'VE NEVER KILLED ANIMALS BECAUSE OF VIDEO GAMES.



Chrono_Cross said:


Then what are you implying? That we should only take care of our species and ignore all others?


You see, the big picture of it all, is that we have different organisations for different things. We do have organisations that take care of human rights and supply aid to reduce child hunger and abuse. Even though it's impossible to cure the struggle, it's still a fighting cause.

And so is PETA. PETA doesn't have to entirely care about human safety because that's not its purpose. That would be like McDonald's encouraging customers to visit your local ice cream shop.

Either way, abortion is completely off topic.



banacheck said:

Is it disgraceful for documentary channels to show cruelly to animals, seeing as we watch documentary channels as part of our entertainment?

Seeing as we play games as part of our entertainment too whats the differences, games are not reality but what they show on documentary channels is. Does PETA know the difference from reality & fiction? thats the real question.



Tsuchiya said:


PETA can be a pain but they are a fantastic organisation which I proudly support but they do get a lot of unfair hate when they step outside of their territory.

I don't care what anyone says, any game that realistically depicts the killing of anything that happens in real life purely for titilation is wrong. Historic war games being the exception when handled with respect.

If whaling wasn't still active and they played the historic card, then yeah, fair enough but unfortunately that's not the case and Ubisoft are sexing up a horrendous human practice that needs to end.



New_3DaSh_XL said:

@Tsuchiya I didn't say that having whaling in games wasn't a bad thing, I don't really see what the point of it is. All I'm saying is I - and a lot of other people - don't care at all about what PETA says, about what, ever.

But, seriously, it's a VIDEO GAME. How many people in the world have gone out after playing ACBF and started whaling? 0 people. It like PETA saying that Mario wearig a Tanooki Suit encourages wearing furs. After playing SMB3, SM3DL, and NSMB2, did I, for a SECOND, even THINK about buying furs? No.



Whopper744 said:

@Chrono_Cross Alright. Sorry I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed anyway. Not your alls fault.

To answer your question, no. I don't think we need to just solely aid ourselves. I just get a little flustered when I feel some orgainzations worry more about the trees and other species more then humans. That's not to say those things don't need taken care of too though! I'm just wanting to say, I think priorities are a little messed up when things like killing a helpless unborn child is allowed, while PETA is fighting to get killing animals out of video games. I know that's a little off topic, but just to give you a little more insight of where I'm coming from.



MasterWario said:

Yes, it's inhumane to slaughter whales, but killing humans is totally fine. -_-
There's just something wrong with that.



Chrono_Cross said:

Of course, and I agree with on your concerns. Though, with a little research, there are people and organisations like PETA out there who are against almost anything you can think of.

PETA just so happens to be the company that's against slaughtering, torturing and skinning of animals, whether it's real or digital and rightfully so (especially if it's unnecessary).



real_gamer said:

I don't remember AC4 showing any "whaling" actions of some sort. What makes PETA think they might have whaling? Because of the pic?



Whopper744 said:

@3Dash. Sorry about that! Couldn't help it. Just popped up in my head.
Finally had some coffee. Trying not to go crazy here at work.



Tsuchiya said:

Some people are just ignorant.
If we didn't have the likes of PETA fighting for those that can't, the world would be a pretty ugly place to live in.

Yes, they can go a little over the top at times but they mean well. I think that in this instance, they are right to kick up a fuss. They have been silly in the past but not here.



Tsuchiya said:


How you decide to use your brain is your business. Organisations like PETA help to show how stupid humans can be. Animal cruelty be it real or depicted in a videogame has no place anywhere.

If people get wood killing animals by pressing buttons then that's nice for them even if it's a little sad but to depict cruelty for their 'entertainment' is wrong.

It says more about the gamer than it does PETA. To some gamers, if God himself knocked Nintendo they'd want his head on a pike.



SheldonRandoms said:

There's always going to be arguments between both sides, with both sides (even Peta) making good points, but still, this is a video game, it's not real, but some of the things Peta do to promote themselves..........well, that's why people don't take them seriously, some people think Peta is just a weak joke, but even still, at least people will be more aware of animal cruelty and stuff, that someone will take a stand to do something.

Also, does the circle of life not mean anything?



supersix said:

I'm not going to comment on the PETA angle but personally I have no desire to hunt whales in a video game. Now a giant octopus or some kind of sea monster? Hell yeah.



Whopper744 said:

I don't want to argue, just to reiterate, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to protect animals. I may not agree with some of you on here, but I know a lot of you probably don't agree with me either. Personally, I live in an area where hunting (deer mostly) is quite popular, and I don't have a problem with it. Really, i might even try it myself if I knew how. That being said, I still think we need to be as humane as we can about it. I think God excepts us to try to survive and for some people, that means hunting for food. I still think humans are ultimately priority over animals. I could go on with that but I don't want getting kicked off of here for referencing whats considered religious beliefs.
Completely torturing animals for the fun of it is a bit of a different story of course. While some things are black and white, right and wrong, I can see where some people have arguments on both sides here.



Tasuki said:

So instead of going after the video game companies why dont they go after the people doing it for real? Just cause I kill a whale in a game doesn't mean I am going to do whaling in real life. Thats like saying I play GTA games so I am going to go sell drugs and pimp hos in real life.



Windy said:

PETA needs to stop hitting the peyote so hard. they have lost track of what's reality and what's not. Hello! Videogame! not real life



Windy said:

@Joshers744 You sound like a real nice person and that's definately a good thing. But PETA is way out of line to even take a stance on what is a game. Meaning games are not real life. Games are just an escape nothing more, nothing less.



AbeVigoda said:

If a giant squid is allowed to kill a whale and no one complains, I should be able to do the same thing!



SheldonRandoms said:

Also, with Peta, remember when they attacked Mario with the Tanooki skin, well they later admitted that it was just a joke, so what if this is all a joke, this is why it's so hard to take them seriously, yeah, animal cruelty is wrong, but is this how your gonna stop kids, the future of mankind and adults to stop this, trying to involve video games, while your at it Peta, make a Parody of Gangnam style, with the Harlem "We should to stop killing animals like this" shake.



Chrono_Cross said:


What's the difference between killing animals in video games and sexual activity in video games? I'll answer that: none.

Now, killing animals and sex in video games can be justified if it's appropriate to an extent. An example of this would be a set piece where person A tries to either scare off or kill a bear in protection of person B.

That's another point: there should almost always be an appropriate alternative to sex and unnecessary violence. Though, that's this industry's problem it seems.



AJWolfTill said:

First off, I am very against whaling and by and large hunting in general.
However there is a big distinction in something like Cabela's big game hunts, which I can understand PETA protesting, considering the entire game is marketed at hunting animals many of which such as rhinos are protected.
However it is clear that in this case Ubi are simply trying to flesh out historical context and I find it hard to condone either side.



New_3DaSh_XL said:

As I said before, I didn't say it was a good thing. I just said that I, personally, don't care, and that Nintendo, Microsoft, Ubisoft, and Sony don't care either. PETA is wasting their breathe.

Also, as some people pointed out before: so, it's OK to kill humans in games, but animals? No way!



New_3DaSh_XL said:

@RoryLee Fair enough, but even with humans being killed I can prove a point. Most of us gamers agree playing violent video games don't really make you violent, right? Well, if I play a game with animal violence, that doesn't mean I'm going to hurt animals.



retro_player_22 said:

"PETA encourages video game companies to create games that celebrate animals—not games that promote hurting and killing them."

There are games that honor animals (Ecco the Dolphin, Donkey Kong Country, Animal Crossing, and Nintendogs) but in most cases animals can be represented in games in another way too like in horror movie, giant python, wild hounds, t-rex, even whales (I know most ppl would be really happy if Moby Dick or that whale in Pinocchio ever died).



Tsuchiya said:


Whether or not you're going to harm animals is down to you and your common sense. Ubisoft are highlighting a horrific human act that is happening now as we speak. Such crap has no place anywhere.



New_3DaSh_XL said:

How many times am I going to say this? I didn't say I liked that this was in games. It really shouldn't be. I said that no one is going to listen to them.



Intrepid said:

All of this is in historical context people, chill out. It was a way of life in those times and its inclusion is important to achieve accuracy. Ubisoft does not support whaling, or is trying to encourage you to do so. If you don't enjoy the idea of killing whales, don't buy the game. I'm suprised that people are defending PETA.



WingedSnagret said:

Ugh, okay. I am an animal person, have had them all around me, and always will, and despise cruelty to them (like dogfighting and cockfighting) like most others. BUT, killing animals has always been a part humanity so that we may survive (excluding vegetarians, and even then sometimes they still eat fish), that's just the way it is. I will agree that it's sad when creature suffers before death instead of a quick clean end, but when you're dealing with something as huge as a whale, that's practically impossible to do. And besides, I hate it when people treat animals like they are freaking saints. News flash people, they're not. They kill each other, and not always for food either. Take birds for example. In numerous species the biggest nestlings will kill their younger siblings outright. And chimps have been known to commit murder, as in beating others to death, and even cannibalizing. Not that I'm defending cruelty, I hate it like I've said before, but we've got to realize that man isn't the only savage creature on this planet.



DarkKirby said:

Lol, PETA. Maybe if they spent more time and money actually saving animals that need help and less spreading propaganda about how everybody on the planet should be vegans I would respect them more.



banacheck said:

I think EA should make a FPS where we are hunting PETA, we could skin them too. You know wear them like different skins. And by the end of the game you find out your character is actually a animal, how ironic would that be. A joke people...



WingedSnagret said:

@Tsuchiya One would think. And yet I know and have heard of a number of people who say they are vegetarians, yet are not objective to eating seafood. And during Lent (a Catholic holiday) people don't eat "meat" but still have fried fish. I still don't understand how they think fish isn't meat. It's an animal's flesh after all. Personally I bet they still want to eat meat and just decided fish don't count for some reason.



RoboConker said:

So killing an animal in a videogame is horrible and cruel, but killing a human is ok?
This world is all mess-up.



JSuede said:

PETA should probably change its name if they are going to attack video games.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Simulated Animals. PETSA!



RoryLee said:

People are less likely to hurt a human because of the serious consequences. Who's to say some kid wont go out and kill or trap some birds or rabbits because they saw it in Assassins Creed? I doubt they would get into serious trouble for that.



RoryLee said:

Of course there are hunting laws. If you want to shoot a deer, pheasant, or do some fishing its all good. But people still go around messing with the smaller animals like hares, birds and muskrats without permits, or license and they do it just for the enjoyment of it.



New_3DaSh_XL said:

@RoryLee Yes, and people are going to go out and hunt small birds, hares, and muskrats because they played Assassins Creed Black Frag. That makes all kinds of sense.

That still strays from my original point though. I NEVER said I was fine with this in games. OK? I don't like it in games. But I DON'T care what PETA says about video games, because they're — get this — video games. NO MAJOR COMPANY is going to listen to them. Nintendo, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Playstation... none are going to listen to PETA's complaints. PETA is wasting their time trying to reason with them. AGAIN, I NEVER said whaling was OK, nor did I say I was fine with it being in games. I just said I really don't care too much about what PETA says, and neither do the comnpanies they were targeting.



TrueWiiMaster said:

I don't really understand what they're complaining about. This is a game based in the past, when whaling was common, and far from frowned upon, and back then it was indeed quite an undertaking. Attacking the game for having whaling is like complaining about Moby Dick. Whaling happened. It can't un-happen. Why does PETA continue to degrade itself with these ridiculous attacks?



RoryLee said:

I agree that PETA is wasting their time on virtual whale hunting. I'm just sticking up for PETA since the majority of people think that they're a joke. This was a bad move by them, but they do good otherwise.



New_3DaSh_XL said:

I think that they would be a good organization if they didn't overeact and overexaggerate so much.



Lalivero said:

@Tasuki Sadly there have been cases of people re-enacting their gameplay on games like GTA in real life; I'll let you take a guess at what they did.



Void said:

Huh, I didn't even know you could hunt whales in ACIV before now...
Really couldn't care less about it.



Jack_Package said:

I don't know the mechanics behind whale hunting in AC because I have no interest in the series.

But this leads me to question, do PETA actually know that the game glorifies whale hunting? Or are they just throwing about knee jerk accusations?



Drobotic said:

TRY WORRYING ABOUT REAL ANIMALS FOR ONCE!Ermahgerd.PETA just needs to be shut down!



Drobotic said:

But seriously,PETA doesn't know what they're talking about.In the Hunger Games film,people eat animals.In Animal Crossing you even make FRIENDS with animals.Not to mention Nintendogs.There's a lot they COULD do,but they're just too busy focusing on fiction and not reality.Heck,if I had to choose between joining the PETA and dying,I'd rather die.They just need to stop it at this point.



Shanksta said:

I'll kill a whale in a video game because I'll probably get some in-game money and its not real and I have enough common sense to know he difference between reality and video games. I get what PETA is saying but they're idiots about most other things so I really just don't care what they have to say. I also get the arguments about the realism of the videogame desensitizes people, but I would argue against that, I mean unless you are some kind of idiot.



IxnayontheCK said:

I support PETA and animal rights. I see their point but tbf, Link throws chic- cuckoos n i don't recall them saying anything about that.



theblackdragon said:

I don't know how people are able to ignore how PETA's hands are as covered in animal blood as the animal-killers they despise. The wailing of these hypocrites as they scrabble for any sort of media relevancy they can grab is annoying. I only wish a more honest organization that doesn't kill defenseless animals sent to their "no-kill" shelters could step up and knock PETA off its pedestal.



doctor_doak said:

@ Tscuchiya

That article is nonsense. 'No kill' has had a great deal of success when implemented 'properly'. PETA is the most hypocritical entity in existence. They don't even bother trying to get new homes for healthy animals, and have blocked attempts at groups trying to find new homes for the animals they take in. Read this Huffington Post article for a different perspective,



Tsuchiya said:

Ok. But I think I'll lose that battle.

WW2 games are surely the exception. What do you expect the Axis to be firing and throwing about? Bubbles?
Tat like Saints Row and GTA are the culprits. Ubisoft are just throwing in mindless violence here.



Arminillo said:

I don't like how most gamers deny the idea violent or negative videogames can be offensive or influence people. Just because something doesn't happen in reality doesn't mean it has no effect on people.



Captain_Balko said:

I think that if PETA is against killing whales in Assassin's Creed they should also be against killing people in Assassin's Creed. Humans are animals too!



Gidkilla said:

@ Suicune. I agree, its missing PETA's point if you think they are concerned with you hopping in your boat for a morning whaling session. Any kind of virtual glorification of something that is obviously a real life problem should be treated with more sincerity. Whaling however historical is a little different to shooting aliens and with graphics and gameplay becoming more and more advanced we can't help but start to run the risk of these things influencing certain peoples at some level, even if its just being blasé to it all.



GraveLordXD said:

The thing I don't understand is how Mario constantly gets away with eating shrooms and killing turtles? :/



Drobotic said:

Seriously,I don't think someone would just go out and be a whaler because of AC4.Don't hate the game,hate the player.



dcoughler said:

So, to recap: watching an assassin sneak behind someone, slit their throat, and leave them gasping and choking on their own blood is okay, as long as we don't show a whale hunt.




YorkshireNed said:

This is so silly. I'm a pro-animal rights vegetarian BUT IT'S ONLY A GAME FOR FLIPS SAKE. I think PETA have done so much to damage the cause with their stupid behaviour over so many things and this is just another example.



jorgy483 said:

Kill thousands of virtual humans in horrific ways = nothing
Hunt a virtual whale = get sued



pariah164 said:

Can we please just fire every PETA member into the sun?

Anyone who thinks PETA is a valid organization go watch the Penn & Teller: Bulsh*t episode about them.



TheRealThanos said:

Wow, just wow. I must be getting real old real fast because there is too much ridiculousness here to even make a snappy comeback to, so I'll just do a quick recap and my two cents.

-PETA seem to have turned into idiots and are going way overboard with a sentiment that, at it's core is totally understandable and correct, but because of them milking it for all it's worth it sways towards an almost radical form of idiocy: agreed.
-Killing animals for no purpose other than to kill them is wrong, virtual or not: agreed.

My two cents:
-some of you citing (once again) violence in games as a reason for people to re-enact it in real life is stupid, as are the re-enacters because only the weak minded or people ALREADY prone to violence or negative/suicidal tendencies will give in to thoughts urging them to try game scenarios for real. I've played violent and VERY visceral games all my life and NEVER felt the urge to try some of the things I've done in games for real, so it's up to the INDIVIDUAL, not a given fact that it will definitely happen.
-Secondly, and with all due respect to religious people on here such as @Five-seveN and @Joshers744, it is NEVER a good idea to get religion mixed up in topics like these, since it might radicalize the discussion and as already witnessed in the previous comments, only makes them go even more off topic, such as the mentioning of abortion, which by the way to me should ONLY be allowed if a woman is raped, because you should never be punished twice by having to keep the baby of the person that violated you. That is just SO wrong in SO many ways, that I can't even count them...
-Third: men is NOT better than animal. Remember: we are only mammals ourselves after all, only we moved up the ladder. Imagine what would happen to the Earth if we would all be gone: nature would FINALLY recover from all the damage that man has done to it throughout the centuries, and animal species would no longer go extinct before their time. Even if you're religious, you cannot deny the damage that we as a species have done to the Earth, so no reason to be proud there and CERTAINLY no reason to proclaim man as superior. Modern man wouldn't even survive a week in nature without some modern tools unless he/she has followed a survival course. The first meeting with a bear or other large animal would already be the end for most of us. So much for superiority...

Finally, and back on topic: we don't know exactly YET, in what context whale hunting will be presented in Assassins' Creed, it might be part of an integrated story line (player's ancestors were whalers for example) or, like some other smart persons have already stated, it might just be part of creating an exact representation of what man did around that time to earn a living or survive. And that has NOTHING to do with the game not showing everything that pirates did into the most graphic details, because that might not be an integral to the story.
I guess we'll just have to wait until we can get more details on the what or why and then we might understand why Ubisoft chose to put whale hunting in the game at all. Or they might drop it altogether if they get enough negative responses...

I hope that's sarcasm...
As an American living in Europe I have come to see things in a broader perspective and I'm DEFINITELY no defender of the NRA or the archaic 'right' to bear arms, so maybe we should look into that instead of the endless "let's blame video games" bull poopy.
Might prevent yet another high school shooting drama...



ThreadShadow said:

Whaling was part of history and you can't ignore history. Whaling went on in that period of history. That being said. PETA sees one picture. A picture meant to evoke the epic nature of sea travel. The hero is hanging off the side of his ship while a huge whale splashes about. PETA chooses to interpret this as whaling? Not a hint of whaling is to be seen. I don't think whaling was conducted by men hanging off tall ships with swords. This is PETA looking for publicity again.

Note: I'm against whaling too, but that issue doesn't exist here as far as I can see, or have read so far.

2nd Note: In the 1800s Whalers weren't killing whales for sport, they were using the whale just like the meat industry today is using cattle and birds. And cattle and birds are being treated far less humainly in todays meat industry then the whales were back then.

3rd Note: I'm a vegetarian.



Lalivero said:

@AbeVigoda Even though I can see right through the sarcasm there, I'll clarify myself a little.

You know darn well I wasn't putting the full blame of those crimes on the games, but a few have happened because of them (although it's more the players' faults than the games').



WHMIII said:

PETA needs to shut it. They did next to nothing about breaking dogs necks in CoD, but flip out at actual historical events. They need to find something better to do with their time.



Morpheel said:

"may seem like something out of the history books"

Lol that's very funny when you think about it and the fact that it's Assassins Creed we're talking about.



gundam00 said:

@Suicine & @Gidkilla : I agree with you both. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I think the point PETA is trying to make is that the whale hunting has no purpose in the game and that Ubisoft's excuse of "well that's what they did back then" isn't reason enough to warrant the violence. If Ubisoft removed the whale killing from the game, would anyone notice it was missing? Would players be riding the ship expecting whale for dinner?

This is more evidence of video games glorifying violence while removing any real world consequences. There are a lot of horrific acts of violence that go on, but that doesn't mean players need to re-enact them through a video game. Video games are different from movies and tv because players are actually controlling and interacting with the violence.

Is whale killing the selling point of AC4?
Yes - then make whale killing it's own game if it's so profitable
No - then get rid of it

Rather than glorifying the bloody massacre and murder of a whale, why not celebrate the beauty a whale has?



Vincent294 said:

Wow PETA, it's fake. Plus, it's showing history like it is, should they censor everything out? PETA is a joke (especially considering they never object to the violent assassinations of humans in Assassin's Creed). I care for animals, but they even make a deal out of Pokemon. We all know it's wrong, and I'm against it in real life, but what's the point in censoring out everything? They need to focus their efforts on real whaling, but it seems they'd rather do another publicity stunt instead, letting the real issue be ignored. Just stick to your real mission PETA. You make animal lovers look bad.



DarkNinja9 said:

oOoOo peta guess what i killed a virtual bear in ACIII what you think of that? :3 yeah fudge you and your opinion i will be killing whales if i do get the game so ha



TrueWiiMaster said:

"it is NEVER a good idea to get religion mixed up in topics like these"
"men is NOT better than animal"
That's a very religious subject...

"the archaic 'right' to bear arms"
And that could start up an argument almost as big as religion...



WiiLovePeace said:

I personally will not buy Assassin's Creed IV due to this (& because the violence is over the top), I also chose to stop playing & get a refund on AC III when the game wanted me to start killing wolves. I'm a vegetarian & am against killing anything, animal or otherwise... So yeah... That's my 2 cents



Zombie_Barioth said:

I honestly don't have much, if any respect for PETA as an organization. I understand and even applaud their concern on the matter but instead of making a stand against real-world whaling they choose to start a publicity stunt based on a feature of a game that may or may not even exist. Never mind how hypocritical they are.

Don't get me wrong, I've been around animals my whole life and I'm against animal cruelty. I dislike hunting and even felt bad when I mistakenly scruffed my ferret by the shoulder blades (thats where birds of prey normally grab), but I understand that hunting and fishing are a part of life and have existed more millions of years. Man-kind has hunted several species of animal into extinction or endangerment, these sort of mistakes should be discussed and learned from not hidden away and censored.

If a person harms another living creature without showing remorse, human or animal, there is something very wrong going on. This is also a mature-rated game that shouldn't be in the hands of anyone at an impressionable age, and most adults SHOULD know the difference between reality and fiction.



TheRealThanos said:

@Jaz007 The point being?

@TrueWiiMaster No offense but it IS indeed archaic and was initially intended to defend ourselves from the English, but was kept after and we just exchanged the English threat with any other person or group that justifies the use of weapons.
It should be dragged into the 21st century, revised and people should be monitored or screened WAY more accurately, if only to prevent idiots that shouldn't even be allowed to walk around without supervision from getting their hands on automatic weapons and starting another tragic event. The NRA isn't helping either because they are just trying to save their own skin and they could care less.

The comment I made on religion is factual, not religious. Religion has no or little place in games or on a gaming forum, unless the game uses it in it's story line. (as in Assassins' Creeds' earlier chapters) That does not mean I don't respect people that believe, it just makes discussions WAY too heavy, especially since all we're actually talking about here is digital entertainment, not world changing events. And as far as the animals vs humans go: Earth can do without humans, but NOT without it's flora and fauna, so that comment too was not made with religious intent, but is simply an ecological fact.
@Zombie_Barioth Nice and thoughtful comment.



KAHN said:

didn't PETA complain about Far Cry 3 late last year? no? well, i'd rather they complained about that over this, where in FC3, killing/hunting animals was a big part of the game, and in this, you don't all of the sudden get bored and go whaling.



AlexSora89 said:

First, Super Mario 3D Land. Then, Pokémon Black 2 and White 2. Then, some other game IIRC, and now THIS.

It's official: PETA waits for major AAA game announcements to remind us they exist.

Well, what about picking on the real culprits, PETA? Like, ya know, the actual whale hunters?

@Tsuchiya: Your points are pretty much all valid, but as much of a good work PETA does every day, that's still not enough to justify attention-whoring off a medium (video games) that has nothing to do with them in the first place - because video games, like any other medium, may it be literature, animation, comic books, are a device to portray fiction. Whining about what happens in fiction is an excuse for not being able to do something in real life.



Thexare said:

PETA seems built entirely around publicity stunts, and their attention-whoring does more to damage their cause than to aid it.

Once again I lol at thee.



Jaz007 said:

@TheRealThanos If we are equals and there are no evil sharks than there can be no evil humans. There are sharks that eat their children and as pointed out before animals do horrible things to each other. If our lives are equal in value than they are also equaly worthless as well. Therefore the harming of animals can not be wrong at all and the concept of morallity is false. If are superior to animals on the other hand than we can have good and evil and there can be wrong mistreatment of animals. If we're are just animals on the top of the food chain then evil and good doesn't exist.



TheRealThanos said:

@Jaz007 I'm a bit divided here: either you're actually quite smart, or you don't get nature at all. People can indeed be evil, animals (for the most part) cannot. There is a closed and logical eco system in nature that encompasses ALL animal and plant life and gives meaning to the smallest of things, and even to what we as humans might perceive as cruelty or 'doing horrible things'. As you probably might know a lion pack leader would therefore 'murder' a competitor's cubs or even it's own, just to make sure that he will stay leader for a long time to come, which to him is just taking out the competition and for his reign to continue it is the only logical thing to do by instinct, but only in the eyes of humans is it a crime because we have this nasty habit of humanizing animals and comparing (or for lack of a better word: matching) their actions to ours, which is where our 'verdict' on animal predatory behavior comes from. The same goes for the shark you mentioned, therefore it can't be evil. As one of the very few exceptions, monkeys can be evil because some species willingly and knowingly commit murder for nothing more than the thrill of killing another living being, same as some deranged humans would do. But for the most part only man can be evil because we do evil knowingly, and don't kill based purely upon instinct and with a purpose of natural selection or need for survival in mind. Yes we are mammals (aka animals) but we are so far removed from the natural world that spawned us that we are no longer an integral part of it and for all intends and purposes seem almost inevitably destined to destroy it. As far as superiority of man goes: only in brain power and technical knowledge are we superior. Like I said before: most of us wouldn't survive one week in the wild without being eaten, attacked, poisoned or what not. Strip us of technology and modern comfort and we would diminish in numbers faster than you could probably imagine...


Sorry to all other readers for the off topic rant.



TrueWiiMaster said:

Sigh... No, the right to bear arms was not specifically put into place to fight the English. In fact, the war with the English had long ended by the time the Bill of Rights was penned. The point was to guarantee that the government would never disarm its citizens.

"And as far as the animals vs humans go: Earth can do without humans, but NOT without it's flora and fauna"
How on earth can that be drawn from saying "men is not better than animal"? Also, you make the earth out to be dependent on the plants and animals, but it's not. The plants and animals themselves are dependent on the plants and animals, as are humans. The planet itself does not benefit whether it sustains life or not.
The reason I pointed out you're previous statement, though, was because it conflicts directly with many religions, which you specifically said was better to avoid here. You can't really say "let's leave out religion" and then "your religion's wrong", which, though not in those words, is pretty much the gist of your statement. My religion dictates that man is indeed above animals. To say otherwise in such a matter-of-fact way is to say my religion's wrong.

In response to your more recent post, you bring up an interesting subject. If animals cannot do evil, can they do good? And if man is not separate from animals, why is it only man can commit evil? Referring back to something you said before, why is it only humans seem to be "unnecessary" on earth? Isn't it suspicious that the whole world seems to have been set up perfectly, only for mankind to be placed into it, somehow separate from nature?



AlexSora89 said:

My, my. This is straying away from the gaming world, turning into an even more serious debate. It's really interesting - everybody has his or her point of view, and anyone has its pros and cons. I'll keep an eye on this one - though I hope it doesn't end up in Evangelion-level existentialism.



TheRealThanos said:

@TrueWiiMaster Ah, screw me, you're right on the arms comment. Living in Europe must have clouded my mind... (that or staying up way too late to type lengthy comments on a gaming site)
Anyways, as far as me bringing up an interesting subject (hope that wasn't sarcasm on your part) I would enjoy discussing that some more, but I do think that we've strayed too far from the topic.
I do want to note that I did not say that religion is wrong in itself, only that using it in a debate about gaming is not very helpful in keeping the tone of the discussion light and about the topic at hand, which definitely wasn't religion, but hurting virtual animals. (queue open doors being kicked in) Also I do not think that humans are 'unnecessary' but we did remove ourselves so far from nature that it would feel 'unnatural' for us to be ripped out of our cozy society and be placed back into it. Oh, and animals have indeed been known to do good. Some examples of animals that have been documented saving other species and humans as well are dogs, monkeys (they don't just kill), dolphins and even lions and bears. Needless to say that the carnivorous saviors' attempts were by far outnumbered by the more benevolent species of rescuers...

As far as Earth being dependent on flora and fauna, maybe I should have said: "The Earth's eco system can't do without them" but to an extent the initial comment is still true, because without the plant and animal life the Earth would probably be a giant dust ball just like the moon or Mars. Humans for the last few centuries have done very little to assure the continuation of literally hundreds of animals and plant species and even today, all nature loving and wildlife protecting organizations are mostly caught up in doing damage control and can in comparison only do very little to actually prevent man made disasters from doing even more damage.



BlatantlyHeroic said:

I hate it when people think about life with a biased view. Throw away your religious thinking for a moment, actually think for both sides, then come to a conclusion. Otherwise you'll become the laughing stock of the world. I'm not saying religion is bad, everyone just takes their religion too literal.



TheRealThanos said:

@L-Lawliet Think what you want, you're entitled to it, but as you may have noticed; even though I am not a religious person myself, I am still trying to have a NORMAL and civil debate with my fellow human beings and N-Life members, and that can even include not being in agreement all the time (naturally) but without having to be hateful or thrashing anyone's beliefs, so to me personally you seemingly attacking someone because of that is far from cool...



TheRealThanos said:

@L-Lawliet Well, it's a good thing that I said seemingly attacking then...
And a small bit of advice from an older gamer: (you're welcome to ignore it, but it might help somewhat)
At some point you may have to decide to NOT let other people influence you that much that they mentally or even physically tire you or take away your energy. Just let it slide and move on. I know from my own experience that this comes easier once you get older, because I myself was actually quite aggressive up til my 24th or 26th...



BlatantlyHeroic said:

@TheRealThanos Hahaha, I can see how they could take it offensive. I really should have thought about it more. I personally feel that animals are equal to humans, but that's just an opinion.

You could interpret the Bible's way of putting it as though you are a vigilant protector.



TheRealThanos said:

@L-Lawliet Vigilant protector, huh? Not saying I don't like the title, but it's probably too much honor.
Just trying to be civil and respect other peoples' values, whether I agree or can identify with them or not.
I'm with you on the animal part, though...



TrueWiiMaster said:

I wasn't being sarcastic. It was a genuinely interesting topic.

I fully understand what you were saying, and why you'd want to keep religion out of the argument, as it does tend to bring things to a different level of sorts. What I was saying was that the topic of human-animal equality is arguably more religious than not.

"Also I do not think that humans are 'unnecessary' but we did remove ourselves so far from nature that it would feel 'unnatural' for us to be ripped out of our cozy society and be placed back into it"
In some places humans are still extremely tied to the environment. In the Arctic or the Amazon for example, people still "live off the land" so to speak, and yet they still seem as though they are separate from nature. Even way back when people would scare mammoths off cliffs for food, don't they seem out of place, separated from the rest of the natural world? Among the entire animal kingdom, is any animal so isolated as humans?

"Oh, and animals have indeed been known to do good."
But if they can consciously do good, how is it they cannot commit evil? I saw something once about how a killer whale will sometimes play with their still-living prey by throwing it in the air and catching it, or throwing it back and forth between whales. This certainly serves little to no purpose, and would generally be considered cruel, even evil. If that same animal can consciously decide to do something good, why then are its other actions not considered evil?



CharbroiledEwok said:

"PETA encourages video game companies to create games that celebrate animals—not games that promote hurting and killing them."

I know, right? I had to resist quitting my job, buying a ship, and setting out to hunt whales across the ocean...



MagicEmperor said:

I'm PETA all the way. That's right. I Prefer Eating Tasty Animals.
All right, that was a smartass comment, sorry. But I have long hated PETA. They just use shock to draw attention to themselves, and it's such a poor method of public exposure. Look, I love animals (even though I'm a carnivore through and through), but PETA are just totally misguided and wrong. And that's all I can say, because pretty much many others share my sentiments.

Edit: I just can't shake the feeling that Nintendo Life really enjoys stirring the pot. I'm not attacking you guys, but it is something I'm noticing more than before, but maybe I'm wrong.



TheRealThanos said:

Good to know the interest is genuine, but I can't agree (so the term arguably is a well chosen one) that equality of man and animal is a religious one, because it is simply a natural one, or ecological if you will.
Good point on the eskimos and african tribes, but they of course are the exceptions to the rule and eskimos too mainly kill to survive, although nowadays commercial trade and such have taken a much more prominent space in their daily life, but at least they still have a healthy respect for nature.
Animals that do good is something that I should have explained further the first time I mentioned it, because like animals doing evil, it is mainly perceived through the eyes of man. A dog might save a human from drowning or something like that, but does it instinctively and NOT consciously. It is one of the aspects that breeders have incorporated into the domesticated versions of our animals and in some species they even enhanced this.
Your orca/killer whale example only shows exactly what you already said yourself: that animals play with their food, something that almost all carnivorous animals do, from fish to lions, tigers and wolves and foxes. Especially young animals do this to learn in a playful manner how to behave with their prey. Again this is ONLY cruel in the eyes of man because most of us are unable to separate the human emotion from the thing we see, thus we label it cruel or evil. The same then naturally goes for it 'serving no purpose' because it does, only NOT from a human point of view.
@L-Lawliet Good point. It is that and the point that they also seem to experience pain in another way than we do, which enables them to still function well beyond a point where we would already succumb to the stress of it.



TrueWiiMaster said:

But they can understand when someone needs help? Wouldn't that mean they know that person is about to experience pain, or be hurt in some way?

That point can only be established once you remove religion, as religion is the only support for the opposing side. In other words, there is no debate without religion, making the topic one very much related to religion.

My point wasn't just that there are people still intertwined closely with nature, but that even such people, if removed, wouldn't have a significant impact on that ecosystem. In the arctic, if you take away the seals, whales, bears, etc, an impact would occur, but would such an impact happen if the Eskimos were to leave? Humans seem to be separate from nature, and not just because we have separated ourselves into our own, man-made ecosystems.

Wild animals have been known to help people in need too. There was no domestication involved, they just do it.

But if a human were to do the same thing it would be cruel, wouldn't it? Similar reasons could even be used to those in defense of the animals. It could be said that a person is learning something or other from the experience, or exploring some psychological aspect. What separates humans from animals in this regard?



TheRealThanos said:

@TrueWiiMaster Don't know if you are still going to read this, since the article is starting to get buried under a lot of new ones, but here goes:

To me religion is NO part at all since I was only considering and responding to the theory that man is better than animal, which can also be made WITHOUT involving religion, because quite a few humans seem to think that they are better by default, simply because they think they are the 'smarter' species, not because the Bible says so.

As for the humans outside of nature point: at the beginning of time up until when we started to build large cities, humans were very much intertwined with nature and were just as much a part of the natural chain as were animals and plants. Once society evolved, that link disappeared.

You totally missed my point on the domesticated animals remark: I said that behavior that was ALREADY part of wild animals was ENHANCED by breeders when they started domesticating animals, NOT that domestication is involved in animals saving humans.

When humans do evil it IS evil, simply because of the difference in KNOWING. While logically animals MUST be knowing to an extent what they are doing with some of their actions, all actions based on finding and killing their prey are for the larger part instinctual. The difference therefore is that humans not only KNOW they're doing evil, they are CONSCIOUSLY aware, while animals are as I already said mostly guided by instinct, so they are only aware on a subliminal or SUB conscious level, so therefore NOT evil. Humans can also plan murder far ahead and enjoy fantasizing about it, as known in some criminal cases even up to several years ahead, which is something an animal NEVER could or would: if it has an opportunity to kill, it will do so right away, also because it is of a NEED/necessity, not a WANT/desire. And THAT is what separates us from animals.



neelmay26 said:

@Chrono_Cross neelmay26:no it's not real so they have no right but it's the player is risk so when you buy the game you must be strong mentally not weak or you will be controlled by the game any game



TrueWiiMaster said:

Though you may be able to remove traditional religion from the debate, how one defines religion can still make it a religious debate. Personally I consider even atheism a religion, as it requires great faith, even if that faith is in nothing.

In some cultures, like the aforementioned Arctic and Amazon peoples, humans are still "very much intertwined with nature", and yet they still appear very separate. Would the Arctic ecosystem suffer without the human inhabitants? Or would the Amazon suffer if the native tribes disappeared?

But the characteristic was already there in wild animals. That was my point. Why would they have such a characteristic? And if they are making a conscious choice, wouldn't that mean they can also do evil?

That's not always the case. Cannibals don't think they're doing anything wrong. Many people who mistreat animals don't see the problem. If they don't know they're committing evil, wouldn't that put them in the same boat as the animals, who supposedly also don't realize they're committing evil? And that all leads to the question of what defines evil in the first place.

How would we know what an animal is actually thinking? Many animals plan their hunts too btw. It's not just humans that plan their kills.

And that "need versus desire" is a fairly slippery slope. Did you know that black bears don't generally kill people for food? It seems more like they do it for fun/curiosity. Is that not more a "want" than a "need"?



TheRealThanos said:

@TrueWiiMaster I've read and re-read your comment and weighed my thoughts carefully, hesitating to try again to reach a common understanding, because you certainly seem intelligent enough to me, so it SHOULD be possible. Maybe I should blame having to type instead of talk, because text is WAY to open to someone's own interpretation instead of what the writer might truly mean. So, with all due respect it's starting to seem like you don't understand what I'm saying at all, which then in turn makes me not understand why you answer in the way you do, so I think I should offer you the point that we might have to agree to disagree.
The humans vs animals point IS separated from religion, because feeling superior to a (arguably) 'lower' species is not necessarily bound to believing in God or trusting the Bible to tell you the truth, and if you can't see that, it's best to leave that part of the debate be.
The need vs desire is no slippery slope at all, it's already been proven ten times over by animal behaviorists and scientists, so it's a fact.
The black bear comment you brought up to me only shows (once again) nothing but instinctive behavior and NON-evil. ANY predator will kill a human if it comes across it in the wild, it is either territorial or because of opportunity to kill, WITHOUT the emotions that we humans attach to it. (as I explained already in an earlier comment) This is NOT my opinion, it's a well known biological FACT, and widely documented too, if you care to delve into the material that is at hand about such topics.
You also seem to mix up characteristics with instincts, and bringing up cannibals or people that don't know they're mistreating animals doesn't help much either. If you would grow up in a closed society (which could theoretically and factually be true for both cannibals and animal mistreaters) then you wouldn't know any better, so no small wonder that you would be IGNORANT to the fact that it is indeed evil, and therefore you could not be seen as TRUE evil, UNTIL you would be able to compare yourself to the majority of the world and then you should get some idea of what you are doing wrong. (unless of course you are stupid enough to think that because you think that animal mistreatment is okay the rest of the world is wrong)

Then there's animal planning? Nope, only short term, scientifically proven.
And although you didn't mention that, I also gave you the fact that people that murder can truly revel in the deed and enjoy the anticipation of it. And although some species of animals have in fact been proven to enjoy the exhilaration of the hunt, they don't 'enjoy' a kill as some twisted humans would do.
Not to sound cocky or vain, but I NEVER mention anything as a fact or with certainty unless I KNOW it to be true, because I positively HATE being wrong or making a fool of myself. I'm 42 years old, have done a lot of studies (even though I didn't finish them all) and picked up a large part of my knowledge base from that. And besides that I'm genuinely interested in animal behavior, so to this day I keep reading up on anything that has to do with that.
But of course you don't have to take my word for it, I'm not being sarcastic, just straight forward and if you still can't find any middle ground in what I'm saying, then maybe I should redirect you back to the beginning of this comment and offer you the 'agree to disagree' option. No matter whichever one you find closest to your train of thought, I wish you well and happy gaming.



TrueWiiMaster said:

Feeling superior isn't necessarily tied to religion, but being superior is. That's what I was trying to say. To say humans and animals are equal is to say many religions are wrong. To say the subject has nothing to do with religion is to dismiss the argument all together.

So then why do some animals eat food that's bad for them rather then food that's good for them? Or eat more food than they should, which turns out bad for them? Is that not a matter of wanting?

The documentary in which I saw the black bear point seems to disagree with your "proven fact". It was very clear that the bear was not defending its territory so much as just exploring and appeasing its curiosity. This kind of behavior is readily seen in the animal world, from dogs to bears to dolphins.

That paragraph has a lot of wrong in it... First, majority doesn't dictate evil. Evil is evil, no matter what anyone says. Second, animals are also in a "closed society" of sorts. When raised with people, animals sometimes seem to adopt human ideas of what's right and wrong. I've personally seen the look of regret on a dog's face after biting its owner, and then realizing what it did. And not just the look, but the actions. Sometimes they will act as if they are apologizing, others they'll go to a corner like a kid going to his room.

Uh, so? Whether short term (which could still be days in advance) or long term, the planning does happen. Humans are smarter, and so it would be expected that they would come up with longer or more complex ideas.

How would we know if an animal enjoys a kill? It certainly seems like the Killer Whales I mentioned earlier enjoy playing with their prey before killing it. Isn't that revelry?



TheRealThanos said:

@TrueWiiMaster Like I said: let's agree to disagree. You keep reiterating the same points while I have tried to expand on mine. Several of yours are wrong (like how you still don't seem to get that the vast majority of an animals actions are purely instinct based and have NOTHING to do with desire or pleasure and therefore these and other mainly human emotions CANNOT be used to label them) This is by the way (and of course) not decided by me, but by scientific fact, so don't shoot the messenger.
The planning bit of animals too is driven by instinct, and me calling it such was probably too big of a stretch since, as I already explained predatory animals will kill practically instantly if the opportunity presents itself, they will NOT let the prey out of their sight to think about killing them for a couple of more days and then finally come back to do it. So, logically that is not in a million years comparable to what humans do, and trying to force that comparison anyway is both mindless and utterly useless aka round peg in a square hole, but apparently everything MUST be labeled and boxed, as a lot of humans seem to want to do.

As for the black bear example, I only said it could be territorial OR because of opportunity to kill. You only quoted the territorial bit, making it seem that I gave that as my only answer, so your answer in turn is then based upon something taken out of context. But from the look of it the bear incident might have been the same as a shark 'curiously' biting a surfer's leg off, which is STILL not an evil act, because we now know very well what drives a shark to act in such a manner. But because the majority of humans refuse to believe this, the shark is now widely seen as an 'evil' animal and sometimes even 'preventive' killing takes place. It's a VERY good thing that more and more marine biologists show us what sharks are really like. And as for your bear: don't forget that they are far more powerful than humans, so the little slap it gives another bear might be a fatal blow if given to a human. Yet again: still NOT evil.

And my 'paragraph' or whatever had no wrong in it at all. It's well documented and scientifically proven material from which I quoted. You are therefore actually saying that people that make a living of studying animals and their behavior and have degrees in that area higher than you or I will ever reach are wrong, which is both ridiculous and laughable to say the least and probably even somewhat insulting to them... (and besides that I myself am no dumb kid that is spouting text pulled out of context just to prove himself right, like I said: I'm 42yo and well educated so I actually know what I'm talking about and what message I'm trying to get across)

I also NEVER said that majority dictates evil, that is your interpretation of my text, upon which I actually already anticipated by saying that I know full well text can be interpreted in several ways, but I only write EXACTLY what I am trying to say, so no reading between the lines or looking for other meanings than what is actually written, so read more carefully or twice and you will understand what I'm saying. And humans growing up in a closed community that get a wrong education (like for example in a cult or similar group) can indeed be oblivious to the fact that what they are doing is wrong, because they never got the RIGHT example from anyone else, so they can't be blamed for that even though they may have done something that society perceives as, or even knows to be evil. Instead of course the brain washers aka leaders of said cult should be blamed and punished. The follower is only another victim, even though he/she committed a crime.

But to end this conversation from dragging on needlessly even further than it already has, I'm going to stop here.
I don't hate, so as said before in my previous comments, let's agree to disagree and I wish you well but let's just move on to newer topics. You might feel compelled to answer me again, but I am not going to read it because I will be moving on, so you can spare yourself the trouble. Have a nice day. (just in case: no sarcasm intended)



TrueWiiMaster said:

Sigh... Science... And how exactly does science distinguish between emotion and instinct? Could it not easily be argued, under evolutionary beliefs, that what humans do is fundamentally based on instinct? From how we act to what we eat to who we're attracted to, all of that could be called instinct just as well as what the animals do. After all, if humans are equal to animals, how are they not animals themselves? What makes people different?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Look at your own example even! If a person was planning on murdering someone, and the perfect opportunity arose, they'd do it right there. If it's not that easy, they'd plan. Either way, it sounds just like what you said about animals. Likewise, the argument can easily be made that much of human behavior is learned. If you teach an animal not to attack another animal, it will act very much like people do when they want to attack but cannot do so for fear of punishment.

Like I said, black bears don't really eat people. There would be no reason for them to look for an opportunity to kill.

Sharks aren't evil, per se, but they are also a relatively simple animal. Pretty much all they do is eat and swim. Sharks aren't even slightly comparable to animals like bears and whales. As for your example of a shark biting off a person's leg supposedly out of curiosity, couldn't that logic also be applied to people? When kids mistreat animals, they sometimes do it out of curiosity after all.

Sigh again... No matter how many years someone went to college, they can still be wrong. A person could study something their whole life and still be outdone by someone younger than them.

So you're telling me that animals raised with humans, or just without other animals, don't act differently than animals in the wild?

And you can stop repeating your age. It's completely irrelevant. Likewise, your education's pretty irrelevant here too. Logic prevails.

Actually, that's exactly what you said. " small wonder that you would be IGNORANT to the fact that it is indeed evil, and therefore you could not be seen as TRUE evil, UNTIL you would be able to compare yourself to the majority of the world and then you should get some idea of what you are doing wrong. (unless of course you are stupid enough to think that because you think that animal mistreatment is okay the rest of the world is wrong)" I mean, c'mon. You specifically said that people won't know if they're doing evil until they see that the majority of people think it's evil, and that anyone who thinks differently than the majority is stupid! That's not reading between the lines, that's blatant. And I did read carefully.

And what exactly decides what is and isn't evil, if not religion, which you readily dismiss, or majority, which you now deny? Why is cannibalism wrong?

I don't hate either, and was actually enjoying the argument, even if you fail to see my points. Whether you never come back to this page, or come back due to curiosity, finding yourself oddly obligated to reply, this is my latest, but not necessarily last, response.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...