Controversial opinion: Scaly Pete was right to kill dear mother

[Sixishungry]

The consensus among Maneater fans and the gaming media is that Scaly Pete was an evil shark hunter who cruelly killed our mother shark - thereby justifying our quest against him. I lost track of the number of article a I've heard describing Scaly Pete as a cruel monster for his actions.

I strongly disagree. The reason is because the Mother Shark was NOT an innocent shark minding her own business. In the first level where you play for her, she is required to devour a bunch of innocent beachgoers. Scaly Pete is only called in after she brutally murders them for no reason. What was Pete supposed to do? Let her keep eating people? Let her go, so that she comes back and continues to kill? Put her in a zoo? (I'm sure there would be people calling him evil if he put her in a zoo, too.)

So in my opinion, Scaly Pete's Original Sin was actually a Virtue.

 

[Shark bait]

The story of maneater is essentially the never ending cycle of revenge. Pete only reacted to the shark killing people mainly because his father's harpoon was stuck on your mother, since she killed Pete's dad. It's meant to represent that cycles of revenge don't end well, and are right or wrong depending on who you ask. For all we know Pete's dad did the same thing to our mother, wounding her for their ego and got what they deserved.

 

[SharkBoy266]

Was it really justice when the mother Shark's daughter shark ended his family line?

I don't think so. It's like your kid being stung by a hornet, then you go and take down the hornet nest and in the process you and your spouse get stung hundreds of times and get sent to the hospital.

Sometimes real justice is in forgiveness and revenge becomes a prison in our soul but can also make things even worse. This is usually how it goes in real life.

In the end, it's one of those things where I don't mind what happened in thr story

 

[Sixishungry]

Was it really justice when the mother Shark's daughter shark ended his family line?

I don't think so. It's like your kid being stung by a hornet, then you go and take down the hornet nest and in the process you and your spouse get stung hundreds of times and get sent to the hospital.

Sometimes real justice is in forgiveness and revenge becomes a prison in our soul but can also make things even worse. This is usually how it goes in real life.

In the end, it's one of those things where I don't mind what happened in thr story

Your argument doesn't address my argument. I never argued that Pete was justified in killing the mother due to his father being killed by a shark, yet that's what it seems like you are replying to. My argument is that Pete would have been not only morally justified, but morally obligated, to kill any shark that is attacking beachgoers.

It's not a matter of forgiving a distant past (Pete's father being eaten years ago,) but rather a matter of saving beachgoers in the present.

 

[Sixishungry]

The story of maneater is essentially the never ending cycle of revenge. Pete only reacted to the shark killing people mainly because his father's harpoon was stuck on your mother, since she killed Pete's dad. It's meant to represent that cycles of revenge don't end well, and are right or wrong depending on who you ask. For all we know Pete's dad did the same thing to our mother, wounding her for their ego and got what they deserved.

In my initial post, not once did I mention Pete's father. That was deliberate, because my argument is NOT that Scaly Pete is justified to kill sharks due to one eating his father. Ny argument, very narrow in focus, is that Pete was not only morally justified, but morally obligated, to kill the mother shark to prevent her from killing more humans.

 

[SharkBoy266]

In my initial post, not once did I mention Pete's father. That was deliberate, because my argument is NOT that Scaly Pete is justified to kill sharks due to one eating his father. Ny argument, very narrow in focus, is that Pete was not only morally justified, but morally obligated, to kill the mother shark to prevent her from killing more humans.

Of course it does, whether you choose to acknowledge that Pete and his grandfather are each responsible for the death of many many fish, sharks and other oceanic animals is irrelevant and with this, my point counters your point perfectly.

As the narrator says in the game, don't mess with mother nature and mother nature won't mess with you.

 

[Sixishungry]

Of course it does, whether you choose to acknowledge that Pete and his grandfather are each responsible for the death of many many fish, sharks and other oceanic animals is irrelevant and with this, my point counters your point perfectly.

As the narrator says in the game, don't mess with mother nature and mother nature won't mess with you.

If you believe that killing a fish is morally equivalent to killing a human, then your point makes sense. Normally I would assume that you are just trolling with that argument, but then I remember that PETA exists. And if you sincerely believe this, then I sincerely hope that you never act on those beliefs. Still, I suppose I would have to congratulate you the irony on refuting the controversial opinion in the OP with an even more controversial opinion.

But let me expand upon my argument. Since you are fixated on Pete's previous "crimes" against sharks, let us pretend he wasn't around when the Mother Shark was killing beachgoers. Literally any person who was capable of killing dear mother shark had obligation to do so in this scenario. It does not matter what their previous crimes were, it is objectively a moral action to save innocent humans being slaughtered.

 

[SharkBoy266]

If you believe that killing a fish is morally equivalent to killing a human, then your point makes sense. Normally I would assume that you are just trolling with that argument, but then I remember that PETA exists. And if you sincerely believe this, then I sincerely hope that you never act on those beliefs. Still, I suppose I would have to congratulate you the irony on refuting the controversial opinion in the OP with an even more controversial opinion.

But let me expand upon my argument. Since you are fixated on Pete's previous "crimes" against sharks, let us pretend he wasn't around when the Mother Shark was killing beachgoers. Literally any person who was capable of killing dear mother shark had obligation to do so in this scenario. It does not matter what their previous crimes were, it is objectively a moral action to save innocent humans being slaughtered.

Not sure how or why you're trying to make my comments look like they are off-topic or veering off the original point, or saying I'm trolling just because I made a point you cannot contest. Here, I'll make things simpler....

Life is life, in no case of morality or even religion has human life ever been placed higher or superior than any other species - despite some hunans with psychological disorder who kill for sport (serial killers begin with killing animals).

I suppose one could go with an excuse of "morality is subjective" but when you look at the dawn of man, we have always been at war with other species since the beginning of time, so I'm confused at how someone can say "The man was right to kill the animal" and deny that "the animal was right to kill the man" when the motive was the exact same for both species. This was actually explored upon in the 1977 movie "Orca: The Killer Whale" which actually inspired ManEater more than Jaws.

In the movie, we see the animal's family killed off, the animal then wrecks havok and hunts down the fishermen one by one to get revenge.

This theme is also shared with the movie Mighty Joe Young, the Disney movie that shows the brutality of Poaching, showcasing dismemberment of various animals, along with the gorilla biting off a poachers finger, later the gorilla grows into a giant gorilla and seeks vengeance.

So, case in point, I don't think morality is different for an animal, especially when there's no way to truly know what extent an animal feels emotion - maybe more, maybe less, who knows? Now we can go in circles here but your original point isn't the general concensus because most players side with the shark. If you're alive, you feel something and scientifically, it's proven that even animals have some attachment to their mother.

As for the rest of his crew, they were following orders but none of them actually touched the mother shark or the player shark which explains why the shark had no need to go after them.

So, this affirms that I disagree with your original post/point. I think if Scaly Pete got over his pride, Kyle and him would be doing well and the player shark would just be a normal sized happy shark. Scaly Pete created a monster why it was all karma what happened to Kyle and Pete, Kyle even warned him about this in the game, Pete didn't want to listen.

 

[Sixishungry]

Not sure how or why you're trying to make my comments look like they are off-topic or veering off the original point, or saying I'm trolling just because I made a point you cannot contest. Here, I'll make things simpler....

Life is life, in no case of morality or even religion has human life ever been placed higher or superior than any other species - despite some hunans with psychological disorder who kill for sport (serial killers begin with killing animals).

I suppose one could go with an excuse of "morality is subjective" but when you look at the dawn of man, we have always been at war with other species since the beginning of time, so I'm confused at how someone can say "The man was right to kill the animal" and deny that "the animal was right to kill the man" when the motive was the exact same for both species. This was actually explored upon in the 1977 movie "Orca: The Killer Whale" which actually inspired ManEater more than Jaws.

In the movie, we see the animal's family killed off, the animal then wrecks havok and hunts down the fishermen one by one to get revenge.

This theme is also shared with the movie Mighty Joe Young, the Disney movie that shows the brutality of Poaching, showcasing dismemberment of various animals, along with the gorilla biting off a poachers finger, later the gorilla grows into a giant gorilla and seeks vengeance.

So, case in point, I don't think morality is different for an animal, especially when there's no way to truly know what extent an animal feels emotion - maybe more, maybe less, who knows? Now we can go in circles here but your original point isn't the general concensus because most players side with the shark. If you're alive, you feel something and scientifically, it's proven that even animals have some attachment to their mother.

As for the rest of his crew, they were following orders but none of them actually touched the mother shark or the player shark which explains why the shark had no need to go after them.

So, this affirms that I disagree with your original post/point. I think if Scaly Pete got over his pride, Kyle and him would be doing well and the player shark would just be a normal sized happy shark. Scaly Pete created a monster why it was all karma what happened to Kyle and Pete, Kyle even warned him about this in the game, Pete didn't want to listen.

There are many issues with your post, and I will get to all of them. First, I want to address the elephant in the room. You have shown yourself to be shockingly ignorant on the issue of morality and history. Otherwise, how would you even think to type these words:

"in no case of morality or even religion has human life ever been placed higher or superior than any other species."

Unfortunately, you do not appear to be joking. It seems you are completely unaware of the traditional Christian (despite identifying as Christian in another thread), Jewish, and Islamic belief systems. These three religions which are the dominant forces in much of the world (with the exception of eastern Asia) have somehow completely eluded you. First, let us examine Christianity:

The traditional Christian view
When early theologians looked at "nature red in tooth and claw" they concluded that it was a natural law of the universe that animals should be preyed on and eaten by others. This was reflected in their theology.

Christian thinking downgraded animals for three main reasons:

• God had created animals for the use of human beings and human beings were therefore entitled to use them in any way they want
• Animals were distinctively inferior to human beings and were worth little if any moral consideration, because:
  • humans have souls and animals don't
  • humans have reason and animals don't
• Christian thought was heavily humano-centric and only considered animals in relation to human beings, and not on their own terms

Animals and saints
Not all leading Christians disparaged animals. Some of the saints demonstrated that virtuous Christians treated animals respectfully and kindly:

• St Antony of Padua preached to fishes
• St Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and became the most popular pro-animal Christian figure
• Cows are protected by St Brigit
• St Columba told his monks to care for a crane
• St Brendan was helped in his voyage by sea monsters

Modern Christian thinking about animals
Modern Christians believe they are 'stewards'
Modern Christian thinking is largely sympathetic to animals and less willing to accept that there is an unbridgeable gap between animals and human beings.

Although most theologians don't accept that animals have rights, they do acknowledge that some animals display sufficient consciousness and self-awareness to deserve moral consideration.

The growth of the environmental movement has also radically changed Christian ideas about the role human beings play in relation to nature.

Few Christians nowadays think that nature exists to serve humanity, and there is a general acceptance that human dominion over nature should be seen as stewardship and partnership rather than domination and exploitation.

This has significantly softened Christian attitudes to animals. However, most Christians still maintain the sanctity of human life over animal life.

Next, let us turn our attention to Jewish custom. Do they agree that human life is superior to animal life. Yes. From the BBC:

Sanctity of life
The term sanctity of life means the extent to which human life is considered precious.

Jews believe that humans were made as part of God’s creation and in God's image. Therefore, human life should be valued and considered as sacred and God-given. Due to these attitudes towards the sanctity of life, Jews believe that only God can give life, and only God should take life away.

Pikuach nefesh
The term pikuach nefesh refers to the belief stated in Jewish law that preserving human life should overrule any other religious considerations.

For example, if a human life is in danger of ending, then all other teachings in the Torah are overridden and all other laws are put aside to ensure everything is done to try and save the human life. There are a number of examples which can be found in the Talmud, which discuss which mitzvot can be overridden if a human life is in danger. (If Scaly Pete was Jewish, his religion would have demanded him to kill the Mother Shark in order to save human life.)

Let us turn to Islam:

Using animals is permitted
The Qur'an explicitly states that animals can be used for human benefit.

It is God who provided for you all manner of livestock, that you may ride on some of them and from some you may derive your food. And other uses in them for you to satisfy your heart's desires. It is on them, as on ships, that you make your journeys.
Qur'an 40:79-80

Ritual slaughter
Muslim ritual slaughter
Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law.

This method of killing is often attacked by animal rights activists as barbaric blood-thirsty ritual slaughter.

Muslims disagree. They say that Islamic law on killing animals is designed to reduce the pain and distress that the animal suffers.

Islamic slaughter rules
These are the rules for Islamic slaughter:

• the slaughterer must be a sane adult Muslim
• the slaughterer must say the name of God before making the cut
  • The name of God is said in order to emphasise the sanctity of life and that the animal is being killed for food with God's consent (Note that cannibalism is strictly prohibited in most religions.

Now that we have established the falsehood of your statement ( "in no case of morality or even religion has human life ever been placed higher or superior than any other species." ) let us move on to the next point. You state:
"I'm confused at how someone can say "The man was right to kill the animal" and deny that "the animal was right to kill the man" when the motive was the exact same for both species"

Well, young man, that is not what anyone here has said. At this point, I am wondering if you are skimming my posts and then replying to the points that you THOUGHT I made rather than the points I actually made. I never said "the human is right to kill the shark for any reason whatsoever," like what you imply I stated. My focus on this thread is narrow, as I made clear from the OP: It is right to kill a shark that is killing humans. End of story." The Mother shark was killing humans. Therefore, it was right to kill her. If she had been minding her own business, then it would have been wrong to kill her. But she wasn't.

Let us move on to your next point l, and it shall indeed be the last:
"your original point isn't the general concensus because most players side with the shark."

Dude! Did you even read the name of the thread you are commenting on? I already know most of Maneater's fans side with the shark. That's why I called my opinion "Controversial." Besides, since when is morality dictated by mob rule? If a mob were to define morality, it certainly wouldn't be gamers who have probably never read a religious text in their life! Besides, most gamers "side" with the shark in the exact same way that they "side" with Crypto in Destroy All Humans. It's not a sincere moral stance for most of them. They side with the shark because they play for her. If the game was from Scaly Pete's point of view, most of them would side with him.

EDIT: Doo-Daa! That's the end!

 

[SharkBoy266]

Eh... Strange argument that somehow turned into a history lesson and sunday school sermon. Stating things I already knew but the thing is, everything you wrote had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You're going into ritualistic animal slaughter but not mentioning that there were ranks to which animals could be slaughtered for certain sins. For example, people would sacrifice their best animal out of the flock in respect to the laws of God. This contradicts that animals were placed lower than humans on the chain aa there would be no point to seek out a pure vessel of coat, fur, etc. It still doesn't encourage animal slaughter like tou suggests, if anything these religions discourage it "Live right by my laws so you won't HAVE to sacrifice your best animal to atone"

The Christian Bible also used a donkey to talk to deliver a message and a fish to carry gold to make the poor rich. It also showed people praying to a golden calf named Baal. Take things how you want to, this is nothing new here.

Again, what you're talking about has nothing to do with what I am talking about and you somehow managed to get away from the real focus of the thread and my points in order to stay right. That said, I think it's you who is trolling here lol

To elaborate further on how you're trolling here, you're both twisting things here and not including all variables. As a Chritian with thorough knowledge of the Christian Bible, you should have understood that when the book says "I shall give you dominance over the earth, sea and air and all animals within them" that this doesn't mean that you are able to go into a forest and face off with a jaguar or swim in the ocean and try to fight a shark. You still need a squad of humans armed to the teeth to hunt either. All I'm asking is that you be a bit more honest here instead of twisting examples to support your point.

Is it really the end? I'm betting you'll have another off-topic long post and blame me for derailing your thread...

 

[Sixishungry]

Eh... Strange argument that somehow turned into a history lesson and sunday school sermon. Stating things I already knew but the thing is, everything you wrote had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Is it really the end? I'm betting you'll have another off-topic long post and blame me for derailing your thread...

Thank you for acknowledging let again your complete inability to read my posts or to acknowledge your own mistakes.

You wonder how this turned into a "Sunday sermon," and yet you were the one who showed your blithering ignorance by stating that no religion places the life of a human over an animal. Then you whine when I expose your falsehood, because you' have the mentality of a foolish teenager drunk on his own ego. You have proven yourself to be a bad actor who ducks questions and endorses moral equivalency while calling those who back up their arguments as research trolls. Because of your attitude in this thread, I will no longer engage in good faith arguments with you on this forum, on the Discord, or the Reddit for Maneater.

Now run off, ya despicable creep.

 

[SharkBoy266]

Thank you for acknowledging let again your complete inability to read my posts or to acknowledge your own mistakes.


You wonder how this turned into a "Sunday sermon," and yet you were the one who showed your blithering ignorance by stating that no religion places the life of a human over an animal. Then you whine when I expose your falsehood, because you' have the mentality of a foolish teenager drunk on his own ego.

Now run off, ya despicable creep.

I'm more interested in how this conversation turned into an argunwnt with you name calling just because I didn't agree with you or called you out for being biased and disregarding certain variables to fit your cause.

Calling someone ignorant or inable just because they pointed out the flawed logic you possess or calling them a creep for no reason, is indeed a sore loser stroke.

Nevermind the fact that you never seem to adress my contesting points head on but diregard them "I don't side with your points therefore they don't exist."

Lastly, don't tell people to run off as this is a public forum. You can't call someone ignorant and act like this, it implies you have no idea how a public forum works. But I'm interested in seeing what you write next, what petty insults you come up with or what religion you twist in order yo support your efforts.

I know what to expect, let's just see if I'm right

 

[Sixishungry]

I'm more interested in how this conversation turned into an argunwnt with you name calling just because I didn't agree with you or called you out for being biased and disregarding certain variables to fit your cause.

Calling someone ignorant or inable just because they pointed out the flawed logic you possess or calling them a creep for no reason, is indeed a sore loser stroke.

Nevermind the fact that you never seem to adress my contesting points head on but diregard them "I don't side with your points therefore they don't exist."

Lastly, don't tell people to run off as this is a public forum. You can't call someone ignorant and act like this, it implies you have no idea how a public forum works. But I'm interested in seeing what you write next, what petty insults you come up with or what religion you twist in order yo support your efforts.

I know what to expect, let's just see if I'm right

You have proven yourself to be a bad faith actor who refuses to answer questions or to acknowledge your own mistakes when called out, choosing instead to deflect and to call your opposition a troll. Therefore, I see little reason to treat you or your arguments with any respect.

 

[SharkBoy266]

You have proven yourself to be a bad faith actor who refuses to answer questions or to acknowledge your own mistakes when called out, choosing instead to deflect and to call your opposition a troll. Therefore, I see little reason to treat you or your arguments with any respect.

Sure thing lol

I've given you perfect examples and real life ones too and you refuse to accept/acknowledge any of them. Pointing out your flawed mindset on the topic doesn't make me a fake Christian either, look at how you look right now, trying everything you can to troll me by attacking my faith. You're obviously desperate to win.

And nah, you're the one that refuses to adresss any of my points that prove you wrong. That is exactly why you resorted to petty insults and you still continue now.

As for handling the argunent with respect, first work on the maturity and being able to handle others opinions and perspectives, thats more important here.

 

[Sixishungry]

Sure thing lol

I've given you perfect examples and real life ones too and yoi refuse to accept/acknowledge any of them. Pointing out your flawed mindset on the topic doesn't make me a fake Christian either, look at how you look right now, trying everything you can to troll me by attacking my faith. You're obviously desperate to win.

And nah, you're the one that refuses yo adresss any of my points that prove you wrong. That is exactly why you resorted to petty insults and you still continue now.

As for handling the argunent with respect, first work on the maturity and being able to handle others opinions and perspectives, thats more important here.

You called me a troll. Therefore, you did not respect me or my opinions. And you did it before I called you a creep. You seem like the kind of kid who would provoke an older kid at school and then tattle to the teacher that the kid was mean to you.

You still have not acknowledged your mistake in asserting that no religion values human life over animal life. This shows your ego. If you are a Christian, then you can't believe that animals and humans are equal. Yes, I call you a pop Christian if you hold that view. Because that's what you would be.

All right, buddy boy. I'll make this really easy for you. In numerical order, list every question that you want answered, since you claim I ducked your question. I will respond with my own list.

 

[KoldStrejke]

Was it really justice when the mother Shark's daughter shark ended his family line?

I don't think so. It's like your kid being stung by a hornet, then you go and take down the hornet nest and in the process you and your spouse get stung hundreds of times and get sent to the hospital.

Sometimes real justice is in forgiveness and revenge becomes a prison in our soul but can also make things even worse. This is usually how it goes in real life.

In the end, it's one of those things where I don't mind what happened in thr story

lets all remember this "IS" a fictitious Game.

 

[Sixishungry]

lets all remember this "IS" a fictitious Game.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that an intellectual discussion of the game's morality can't take place. My position is that Pete is morally obligated to kill every Maneater in the ocean. Still, that doesn't mean that I didn't have fun tearing innocent humans to pieces in the game. Lol

 

[SharkBoy266]

You called me a troll. Therefore, you did not respect me or my opinions. And you did it before I called you a creep. You seem like the kind of kid who would provoke an older kid at school and then tattle to the teacher that the kid was mean to you.

You still have not acknowledged your mistake in asserting that no religion values human life over animal life. This shows your ego. If you are a Christian, then you can't believe that animals and humans are equal. Yes, I call you a pop Christian if you hold that view. Because that's what you would be.

All right, buddy boy. I'll make this really easy for you. In numerical order, list every question that you want answered, since you claim I ducked your question. I will respond with my own list.

I only called you a troll way after you assumed I was trolling for difference of opinion, you're not mentioning this. Difference is that there was no sign of me trolling you, unlike when you started making things in the conversation personal.

There isn't any religion that places animals lower than human life in value, ritualistic animal sacrifice doesn't mean that animals are lower than humans, only used by them. Using animals for food doesn't make animals inferior either, it just makes humans omnivores, ya know, the animals that eat both meat and veggies. There are plenty of carnivorous animals out there, yet doesn't make them superior to herbivores.

Why would I want to list the points that you so quickly discarded and avoided to address? There aren't many comments here, it should be easy for you to look at them, well, easier than writing a comment and coming up with the next insult, eh?

Anyway, you don't have to worry, I'm stepping out for work and won't be able to comment here any further so in all seriousness, I do hope you have a good day/night and I enjoyed the convo.

 

[KoldStrejke]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that an intellectual discussion of the game's morality can't take place. My position is that Pete is morally obligated to kill every Maneater in the ocean. Still, that doesn't mean that I didn't have fun tearing innocent humans to pieces in the game. Lol

lets Just Stop. enjoy the "game". just enjoy the "game". Like Stan Lee said, 'Nuff Said!

 

[Sixishungry]

I only called you a troll way after you assumed I was trolling for difference of opinion, you're not mentioning this. Difference is that there was no sign of me trolling you, unlike when you started making things in the conversation personal.

There isn't any religion that places animals lower than human life in value, ritualistic animal sacrifice doesn't mean that animals are lower than humans, only used by them. Using animals for food doesn't make animals inferior either, it just makes humans omnivores, ya know, the animals that eat both meat and veggies. There are plenty of carnivorous animals out there, yet doesn't make them superior to herbivores.

Why would I want to list the points that you so quickly discarded and avoided to address? There aren't many comments here, it should be easy for you to look at them, well, easier than writing a comment and coming up with the next insult, eh?

Anyway, you don't have to worry, I'm stepping out for work and won't be able to comment here any further so in all seriousness, I do hope you have a good day/night and I enjoyed the convo.

Thank you for showing what a disingenuous person you are. From this point onward, I shall refuse to engage you in any good faith argument. I have a presence in the Maneater Discord and Reddit. I intend to keep posting in all three of these forums, and I shall hammer the above argument on Scaly Pete so hard that you will think I might have been a hammerhead shark in a previous life.