An endangered species over fish farmed for consumption?
Or do you think its ok for anyone to just shoot endangered animals for the hell of it until they are all extinct?
I know the question isn't directed at me but my response is 'Of course not'. I think there is a conversation to be had about what species are worth trying to save from extinction and I think it would be a tragedy if we lost species like the big cats.
However, this girl is doing nothing of the kind. She is not shooting endangered species; on the contrary, the huge sums that hunters pay go at least partially towards conservation efforts. Simply banning all forms of recreational hunting simply because it offends a few people's sensitivities makes no sense whatsoever.
So by that logic its ok for hunters to shoot other people?
Its the same thing if you consider the killing of any living thing equal to another.
I think that is the tiny flaw in your argument. You might have noticed that every human society tends to place the rights and interests of its human members over those of animals.*
Some animals are clearly more equal than others in what we choose to preserve. The fluffy ones with faces tend to garner much more sympathy, although there is no logical reason to do so. If only the Atlantic Salmon had fur or feathers, I'm sure we would not have allowed a combination of industrial fish farming and commercial netting to drive it to the brink of extinction.
*Yes, other animals if GibsonGirl is watching...:(
I think the Yanks have a much more pragmatic view of hunting and guns generally than the urban halfwits calling for her head. I don't mind betting that showing a passionate interest in hunting and conservation will be an advantage when trying to secure a college place. After all, who do you think is a more rounded person; someone who has travelled and actually done stuff or somebody who has unthinkingly jumped on the latest social media bandwagon?
Someone who stands up for their opinions and has empathy over a blood hungry horse-faced inbred toff? Hmm.. gonna have to think about that one!
What I take umbridge to is the fact she is posing there with a beautiful endangered animal she has just killed with a smug grin on her face and is trying to justify it by saying it's for conservation! I would take great pleasure in seeing all these hunters rounded up and shot one-by-one, that would be good for population control. Weed out the heartless beasts who clearly haven't evolved.
...
What I take umbridge to is the fact she is posing there with a beautiful endangered animal she has just killed with a smug grin on her face and is trying to justify it by saying it's for conservation!
What endangered species? I think you mean endangered in the wild, the implication in the article is that the lion in the picture was not wild.
"Controlling the male lion population is important within large fenced areas like these... Funds from a hunt like this goes partially to the government for permits but also to the farm owner as an incentive to keep and raise lions on their property."
Farmers don't usually fence in and raise wild animals, they raise livestock.
I would take great pleasure in seeing all these hunters rounded up and shot one-by-one, that would be good for population control. Weed out the heartless beasts who clearly haven't evolved.
I think you've actually devolved rather than evolved.
What endangered species? I think you mean endangered in the wild, the implication in the article is that the lion in the picture was not wild.
Farmers don't usually fence in and raise wild animals, they raise livestock.
I think you've actually devolved rather than evolved.
There are very few truly wild areas left as you well know.
That does not justify it.
A quote from another forum.
I think it is fairly obvious that hunters kill primarily, if not solely, because they enjoy doing so. Hunting is a hobby for most. Any justification provided is a constructed one.
They do not experience a realization and thereafter strive to balance local ecosystems; they make a habit of slaughtering fauna and then fling any incomplete excuse they can garner at the objecting public. Overall, hunters do not care to restrict their methods to ensure decidedly beneficial ramifications; they are simply not concerned enough.
Any environmentalist devoted to preserving indigenous fauna will likely be opposed to animal slaughter altogether, so people to whom that latter sentiment does not appeal will very likely be indifferent to the former as well. Hunting, historically and currently, is the source of more problems than it ameliorates.
It is obvious that the little redneck in the article does it for the thrill of the kill, nothing more.
Look how proud she is sitting on that poor lion. The smug cow.
I would say someone hunting for food is really the same thing as someone hunting for fun as both are not necessary. Also in terms of population control the only species that is out of control is the human species.
So as a moral matter none of your assumptions are correct. if you eat animal flesh then your just as guilty as the people who hunt for fun.
Someone who stands up for their opinions and has empathy over a blood hungry horse-faced inbred toff? Hmm.. gonna have to think about that one!
What I take umbridge to is the fact she is posing there with a beautiful endangered animal she has just killed with a smug grin on her face and is trying to justify it by saying it's for conservation! I would take great pleasure in seeing all these hunters rounded up and shot one-by-one, that would be good for population control. Weed out the heartless beasts who clearly haven't evolved.
Yeah, you haven't given this any thought at all, have you?
Have another read of the post that you are responding to and see if you can do better.
Once again, the main objection seems to be her having a 'smug grin'. What difference does it make what facial expression she happens to have? You also seem to be another one of those lunatics who thinks that murder is a rational response to a disagreement over the issue of hunting. One does wonder who the heartless (never mind stupid) bastards are here.
and I just believe in karma, they deserve to get what's coming to them.
Yes, of course not actually thinking about the subject is so much more easy, isn't it?
I'm assuming the 'karma' reference is the facebook definition; i.e. hoping that something bad will happen to somebody you disagree with. Well done, there.
Well, if it's not in the wild then it's part of a (human) managed population which are subject to population control.
Maybe keyboard warriors should be concerned that they might get electrocuted by their computers then. Wishing misfortune on others might just rebound.
I wish misfortune on others who cause misfortune to others.
Of course not all hunters or hunter supporters will be able to grasp that animals feel pain as do humans and those that do are very arrogant in thinking they have more right to a life. They must know they are in the wrong which is why they're always so rabidly trying to defend themselves.
It is one thing killing something for a reason and another thing in appearing to take pleasure in it which negates your whole argument and makes it look as if you're killing because you like to inflict pain on others to feel superior.
Some say meat eaters are hypocrites in eating meat yet being against animals suffering and being killed needlessly whereas you are all hypocrites in thinking you can kill animals to keep their population down but that isn't acceptable to humans. What's the difference? Oh right it's because we are humans so that's ok to have one rule for one species and another rule for another. How arrogant.
My connection is terrible tonight so I will post when I can.
As for the argument people only care about the fluffy-wuffy Pandas.
Not me.
I find it totally disgusting that while China has wiped out some really wonderful animals very recently (the poor Baji dolphin, the gigantic Chinese Sturgeons and Paddlefish for starters) they get all the attention.
They use the Panda as a smoke-screen.
Not to mention bear-bile farming, shark finning for f*****g tasteless soup and the repulsive trade in Tiger, Rhino, Elephant (and just about anything else) body parts for dark age traditional bullshit 'medicine'.
Oh and slicing snakes open alive and eating the poor creatures guts and blood in top restaurants.
>:(>:(>:(
All animals should be conserved and protected, not just the cute ones.
I wish misfortune on others who cause misfortune to others.
Of course not all hunters or hunter supporters will be able to grasp that animals feel pain as do humans and those that do are very arrogant in thinking they have more right to a life. They must know they are in the wrong which is why they're always so rabidly trying to defend themselves.
It is one thing killing something for a reason and another thing in appearing to take pleasure in it which negates your whole argument and makes it look as if you're killing because you like to inflict pain on others to feel superior.
Some say meat eaters are hypocrites in eating meat yet being against animals suffering and being killed needlessly whereas you are all hypocrites in thinking you can kill animals to keep their population down but that isn't acceptable to humans. What's the difference? Oh right it's because we are humans so that's ok to have one rule for one species and another rule for another. How arrogant.
What makes you so sure intensively farmed animals don't suffer for your taste buds? Why do you think you have to eat meat? What's wrong with beans and lentils?
My connection is terrible tonight so I will post when I can.
As for the argument people only care about the fluffy-wuffy Pandas.
Not me.
I find it totally disgusting that while China has wiped out some really wonderful animals very recently (the poor Baji dolphin, the gigantic Chinese Sturgeons and Paddlefish for starters) they get all the attention.
They use the Panda as a smoke-screen.
Not to mention bear-bile farming, shark finning for f*****g tasteless soup and the repulsive trade in Tiger, Rhino, Elephant (and just about anything else) body parts for dark age traditional bullshit 'medicine'.
Oh and slicing snakes open alive and eating the poor creatures guts and blood in top restaurants.
>:(>:(>:(
All animals should be conserved and protected, not just the cute ones.
It's very shocking when you see what so called top restaurants serve. Veal and foie gras for example, it just makes me think the more money you have the less sensitivity you have to the suffering in the world.
Of course not all hunters or hunter supporters will be able to grasp that animals feel pain as do humans ....
Hence the goal of an instantaneous kill, with a single shot, rather than wounding the animal and leaving it in pain or bleeding to death, it's difficult to feel pain if you are dead.
It's very shocking when you see what so called top restaurants serve. Veal and foie gras for example, it just makes me think the more money you have the less sensitivity you have to the suffering in the world.
Animal abusers profit from it, it's basically how they make their livelihood even fortune and why they lack sensitivity to it
As long as their wallet has plenty of money in it they don't care.
What makes you so sure intensively farmed animals don't suffer for your taste buds? Why do you think you have to eat meat? What's wrong with beans and lentils?
Well I was a vegetarian for a very long time until I realised I got fed up of just being able to eat pasta in tomato sauce when eating out. If there is a nice vegetarian alternative then I will go for that but nowadays I will only eat chicken occasionally.
Meat is generally stunned before being killed but I have boycotted halal restaurants. I know some have said most halal is stunned aswell but not all is.
Hence the goal of an instantaneous kill, with a single shot, rather than wounding the animal and leaving it in pain or bleeding to death, it's difficult to feel pain if you are dead.
Personally I think humans have no more right to life than any other animals.
I'm thinking of people who go out on their horses with their hounds then let the hounds rip the animal to shreads and call it 'sport'.
I don't think it is entirely a black and white issue, if you're not a vegetarian than your views of animal cruelty are discounted which a lot of people seem to think.
Well I was a vegetarian for a very long time until I realised I got fed up of just being able to eat pasta in tomato sauce when eating out. If there is a nice vegetarian alternative then I will go for that but nowadays I will only eat chicken occasionally.
Meat is generally stunned before being killed but I have boycotted halal restaurants. I know some have said most halal is stunned aswell but not all is.
Oh well, at least your intentions were good. I'm sure that's great consolation to the chicken as it's hung upside down in metal shackles and submerged in an electrical water bath before having both its both carotid arteries mechanically severed.
Comments
So by that logic its ok for hunters to shoot other people?
Its the same thing if you consider the killing of any living thing equal to another.
I know the question isn't directed at me but my response is 'Of course not'. I think there is a conversation to be had about what species are worth trying to save from extinction and I think it would be a tragedy if we lost species like the big cats.
However, this girl is doing nothing of the kind. She is not shooting endangered species; on the contrary, the huge sums that hunters pay go at least partially towards conservation efforts. Simply banning all forms of recreational hunting simply because it offends a few people's sensitivities makes no sense whatsoever.
I think that is the tiny flaw in your argument. You might have noticed that every human society tends to place the rights and interests of its human members over those of animals.*
Some animals are clearly more equal than others in what we choose to preserve. The fluffy ones with faces tend to garner much more sympathy, although there is no logical reason to do so. If only the Atlantic Salmon had fur or feathers, I'm sure we would not have allowed a combination of industrial fish farming and commercial netting to drive it to the brink of extinction.
*Yes, other animals if GibsonGirl is watching...:(
But on the lovely Tara, I'm sure we do.
Someone who stands up for their opinions and has empathy over a blood hungry horse-faced inbred toff? Hmm.. gonna have to think about that one!
What I take umbridge to is the fact she is posing there with a beautiful endangered animal she has just killed with a smug grin on her face and is trying to justify it by saying it's for conservation! I would take great pleasure in seeing all these hunters rounded up and shot one-by-one, that would be good for population control. Weed out the heartless beasts who clearly haven't evolved.
What endangered species? I think you mean endangered in the wild, the implication in the article is that the lion in the picture was not wild.
Farmers don't usually fence in and raise wild animals, they raise livestock.
I think you've actually devolved rather than evolved.
There are very few truly wild areas left as you well know.
That does not justify it.
A quote from another forum.
I think it is fairly obvious that hunters kill primarily, if not solely, because they enjoy doing so. Hunting is a hobby for most. Any justification provided is a constructed one.
They do not experience a realization and thereafter strive to balance local ecosystems; they make a habit of slaughtering fauna and then fling any incomplete excuse they can garner at the objecting public. Overall, hunters do not care to restrict their methods to ensure decidedly beneficial ramifications; they are simply not concerned enough.
Any environmentalist devoted to preserving indigenous fauna will likely be opposed to animal slaughter altogether, so people to whom that latter sentiment does not appeal will very likely be indifferent to the former as well. Hunting, historically and currently, is the source of more problems than it ameliorates.
It is obvious that the little redneck in the article does it for the thrill of the kill, nothing more.
Just look at her face in the photos.
Endangered is endangered to me.
and I just believe in karma, they deserve to get what's coming to them.
Karma is a nonsense human construction.
Well, if it's not in the wild then it's part of a (human) managed population which are subject to population control.
Maybe keyboard warriors should be concerned that they might get electrocuted by their computers then. Wishing misfortune on others might just rebound.
I would say someone hunting for food is really the same thing as someone hunting for fun as both are not necessary. Also in terms of population control the only species that is out of control is the human species.
So as a moral matter none of your assumptions are correct. if you eat animal flesh then your just as guilty as the people who hunt for fun.
Yeah, you haven't given this any thought at all, have you?
Have another read of the post that you are responding to and see if you can do better.
Once again, the main objection seems to be her having a 'smug grin'. What difference does it make what facial expression she happens to have? You also seem to be another one of those lunatics who thinks that murder is a rational response to a disagreement over the issue of hunting. One does wonder who the heartless (never mind stupid) bastards are here.
Yes, of course not actually thinking about the subject is so much more easy, isn't it?
I'm assuming the 'karma' reference is the facebook definition; i.e. hoping that something bad will happen to somebody you disagree with. Well done, there.
I wish misfortune on others who cause misfortune to others.
Of course not all hunters or hunter supporters will be able to grasp that animals feel pain as do humans and those that do are very arrogant in thinking they have more right to a life. They must know they are in the wrong which is why they're always so rabidly trying to defend themselves.
It is one thing killing something for a reason and another thing in appearing to take pleasure in it which negates your whole argument and makes it look as if you're killing because you like to inflict pain on others to feel superior.
Some say meat eaters are hypocrites in eating meat yet being against animals suffering and being killed needlessly whereas you are all hypocrites in thinking you can kill animals to keep their population down but that isn't acceptable to humans. What's the difference? Oh right it's because we are humans so that's ok to have one rule for one species and another rule for another. How arrogant.
As for the argument people only care about the fluffy-wuffy Pandas.
Not me.
I find it totally disgusting that while China has wiped out some really wonderful animals very recently (the poor Baji dolphin, the gigantic Chinese Sturgeons and Paddlefish for starters) they get all the attention.
They use the Panda as a smoke-screen.
Not to mention bear-bile farming, shark finning for f*****g tasteless soup and the repulsive trade in Tiger, Rhino, Elephant (and just about anything else) body parts for dark age traditional bullshit 'medicine'.
Oh and slicing snakes open alive and eating the poor creatures guts and blood in top restaurants.
>:(>:(>:(
All animals should be conserved and protected, not just the cute ones.
What makes you so sure intensively farmed animals don't suffer for your taste buds? Why do you think you have to eat meat? What's wrong with beans and lentils?
It's very shocking when you see what so called top restaurants serve. Veal and foie gras for example, it just makes me think the more money you have the less sensitivity you have to the suffering in the world.
Evil be to he who evil thinks ...
Hence the goal of an instantaneous kill, with a single shot, rather than wounding the animal and leaving it in pain or bleeding to death, it's difficult to feel pain if you are dead.
Personally I think humans have no more right to life than any other animals.
Animal abusers profit from it, it's basically how they make their livelihood even fortune and why they lack sensitivity to it
As long as their wallet has plenty of money in it they don't care.
Well I was a vegetarian for a very long time until I realised I got fed up of just being able to eat pasta in tomato sauce when eating out. If there is a nice vegetarian alternative then I will go for that but nowadays I will only eat chicken occasionally.
Meat is generally stunned before being killed but I have boycotted halal restaurants. I know some have said most halal is stunned aswell but not all is.
Though admittedly I do like pasta.
I'm thinking of people who go out on their horses with their hounds then let the hounds rip the animal to shreads and call it 'sport'.
I don't think it is entirely a black and white issue, if you're not a vegetarian than your views of animal cruelty are discounted which a lot of people seem to think.
Just like clay pigeons are an alternative to shooting live birds.
Oh well, at least your intentions were good. I'm sure that's great consolation to the chicken as it's hung upside down in metal shackles and submerged in an electrical water bath before having both its both carotid arteries mechanically severed.