• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Game Hunter Trampled To Death By Elephant

That is completely an opinion. As is 'how much value.' Humans impose the values they choose on other humans and on other life forms. It's entirely subjective. And you cant 'force' people to feel a certain way.

I'm not forcing anyone to feel any way, that's pretty a ludicrous claim. Just stating an opinion. Cheering human death is a bit sick.
 
I'm not forcing anyone to feel any way, that's pretty a ludicrous claim. Just stating an opinion. Cheering human death is a bit sick.

Granted...I qualified that in my post after I initially wrote it.
 
You don't have to have any empathy for others, never said you did. It's just that lack of empathy isn't necessarily something I'd say is a good thing.

I have empathy for loads of people, the family of this hunter for example, they did not ask to be victimized by the result of this hunters actions (his unintended death) but not everybody deserves empathy. Murderers do not deserve empathy, but as I am against the death penalty, I disagree with killing them. I also do not think poachers or big game killers of elephants and rhino's deserve empathy, I do not wish death on any of them (jailing is enough) but if they get killed during their actions to kill these animals then sorry, I do not feel sorry for him.

And lack of empathy is a bad thing if you do not feel empathy for people who deserve empathy but as said, not everybody deserves empathy.
 
I have empathy for loads of people, the family of this hunter for example, they did not ask to be victimized by the result of this hunters actions (his unintended death) but not everybody deserves empathy. Murderers do not deserve empathy, but as I am against the death penalty, I disagree with killing them. I also do not think poachers or big game killers of elephants and rhino's deserve empathy, I do not wish death on any of them (jailing is enough) but if they get killed during their actions to kill these animals then sorry, I do not feel sorry for him.

And lack of empathy is a bad thing if you do not feel empathy for people who deserve empathy but as said, not everybody deserves empathy.

Lots of people try to rationalize lack of empathy for their fellow man. There are various reasons for the floppy morality, mostly dealing with either emotional outburst or trying to reverse engineer an argument. As I said, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a good thing. Even murderers deserve some amount of empathy, I'm not for needless torture or suffering imposed upon them; they are still human.
 
Lots of people try to rationalize lack of empathy for their fellow man. There are various reasons for the floppy morality, mostly dealing with either emotional outburst or trying to reverse engineer an argument. As I said, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a good thing. Even murderers deserve some amount of empathy, I'm not for needless torture or suffering imposed upon them; they are still human.

Who, in your opinion, is the arbiter for how much empathy we should personally accord 'our fellow man?' Why do you dismiss what might not be your personal view of morality as 'floppy?'
 
Who, in your opinion, is the arbiter for how much empathy we should personally accord 'our fellow man?' Why do you dismiss what might not be your personal view of morality as 'floppy?'

When you set some arbitrary level of what is deemed "worthy" of empathy, you've made a floppy definition. It's built in slop that allows one to slide personal moralities around, many times for simplicity and convenience of argument. I don't know who gets to be "arbiter for how much empathy we should personally accord", but I do believe that with humans that amount of empathy should be greater than zero.
 
when you set some arbitrary level of what is deemed "worthy" of empathy, you've made a floppy definition. It's built in slop that allows one to slide personal moralities around, many times for simplicity and convenience of argument. I don't know who gets to be "arbiter for how much empathy we should personally accord", but i do believe that with humans that amount of empathy should be greater than zero.

ok.
.....
 
Anybody feel bad for this man?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...-attempting-slaughter-feast-article-1.1194094

spooked29n-1-web.jpg
 
When you set some arbitrary level of what is deemed "worthy" of empathy, you've made a floppy definition. It's built in slop that allows one to slide personal moralities around, many times for simplicity and convenience of argument. I don't know who gets to be "arbiter for how much empathy we should personally accord", but I do believe that with humans that amount of empathy should be greater than zero.

But having varying levels of empathy for different individuals isn't 'arbitrary.' If two rival drug dealers get into a gun fight over turf, and one of them dies, I don't think any of us would extend the same level of empathy to that individual as we would to an innocent person killed in the crossfire. Many would conclude that the person engaging in the gun fight deserves little or no empathy because he made the choice to engage in a risky and criminal lifestyle that requires him to kill to remain in business. There is nothing floppy about that reasoning - it's a natural result of judging results by the acts that produced the result.

This person chose a profession where he regularly engages in a fight to the death with wild animals quite capable of killing him, and provides himself with the tools that allow him an immense advantage over the animals he's trying to kill. And his profession is killing animals for sport, which is quite objectively different than killing animals for survival. As a result, it's rational in my view to feel less empathy for this individual than for, say, a little girl trampled by an elephant on her way back from school. How much less is "floppy" - and maybe that's your point....
 
poachers should be hunted down and beaten to death with their own weapons...

After careful consideration, I have concluded that it is ethically OK to kill a hunter whose activities threaten the continuing existence of an endangered species, although I support fair trials whenever that is a viable alternative.
 
There's another way to look at it too. How many magnificent African wild animals will now be alive in the future that otherwise wouldn't had this guy not been killed ? :)

that's really stupid. Professional hunters in AFrica are the front line defense against the senseless poaching that is really causing animal loss. Professional hunters, who pay expensive licensing fees and expensive trophy fees are not the problem. Poaching. But the Bambist twits want to whine about professional hunters and their LICENSED clients because they don't understand how things work over there.

legitimate hunters have always been conservationists.
 
Hunting endangered species.

if the hunter is a licensed professional, the country where he is licensed has approved hunting that species.
 
that's really stupid. Professional hunters in AFrica are the front line defense against the senseless poaching that is really causing animal loss. Professional hunters, who pay expensive licensing fees and expensive trophy fees are not the problem. Poaching. But the Bambist twits want to whine about professional hunters and their LICENSED clients because they don't understand how things work over there.

legitimate hunters have always been conservationists.

Yes we can see just how conservationally minded they obviously are by posing and grinning in pictures like this one

CCTfSEAWgAASbjO.jpg large.jpg

Killing a harmless graceful animal like this at close range with a high powered rifle must make her so proud :2mad:
 
After careful consideration, I have concluded that it is ethically OK to kill a hunter whose activities threaten the continuing existence of an endangered species, although I support fair trials whenever that is a viable alternative.

and I would support those who would kill anti hunting extremists who murder hunters because they are Bambists who don't understand that licensed-by definition-are not endangering any such species. Poachers, on the other hand, are usually scum. But poachers and Bambists are both in the same category as far as I am concerned

one cares nothing about the continued existence of a sustainable number of a given game animal and the other tend to be marxist idiots who hate guns, hate hunters and really don't care about animals (since they never learned enough about animals to understand reality)
 
Yes we can see just how conservationally minded they obviously are by posing and grinning in pictures like this one

View attachment 67183449

She must be so proud :2mad:

she should be-looks like she made an accurate shot that harvested the animal quickly

far left types hate hunters mainly because hunters don't tend to have much use for marxist, progressive or socialist ideals


so don't pretend your attacks on hunters is based for a real love of animals. Its based on your view that hunters are disgusted by socialism and collectivism
 
she should be-looks like she made an accurate shot that harvested the animal quickly

What a truly sick perspective on trophy hunting :roll:

far left types hate hunters mainly because hunters don't tend to have much use for marxist, progressive or socialist ideals

I am most certainly none of the above

so don't pretend your attacks on hunters is based for a real love of animals. Its based on your view that hunters are disgusted by socialism and collectivism

Having actually been on safari in Tsavo national Park ,Kenya the last thing in the world I would want to do is kill one of these majestic creatures and then be photographed sitting and proudly smiling next to it.
 
Last edited:
Hunting to prevent a wild animal from hurting people or being a trouble animal that must be eliminated is one thing, hunting big game for ivory or pleasure is something that I disapprove of and if this guy was doing that and got killed in the process then tough luck for him.

There is a distinct possibility that the elephant owes its existance to managed big game hunting. Several African countries protect their herds very well and now there are more elephants locally than the range can support. They are now eating crops.

Well thought out big game hunting not only allows the local elephant herds to be managed, but as big game hunts are very expensive permit wise and involve alot of "over the top" luxury accomodations, they bring alot of money into the local economy. As another poster mentioned, the people in the area then see the animals as a renewable recesource that they need to protect- instead of viewing them as 10 ton pests.

Killing a harmless graceful animal like this at close range with a high powered rifle must make her so proud :2mad:
The local guides, the local schools, and the local clinic are probably also proud that they have a renewable natural recourse that people want to pay big money to harvest (Ok, to shoot).

Modern Big Game outfitters not only practice responsible herd management, but they regularly involve the local people in all aspects of the industry and also make donations to local schoools, clinics etc. According to a business friend that I knew 12 years ago, permits to hunt "Big Five" type game run upto $35,000 dollars. Predator permits were even more. Needless to say, the prices are even higher today- which is more incentive for local people to protect their (not PETA's) renewable natural recesources.
 
Last edited:
What a truly sick perspective on trophy hunting :roll:



I am most certainly none of the above



Having actually been on safari in Tsavo national Park ,Kenya the last thing in the world I would want to do is kill one of these majestic creatures and then be photographed sitting and proudly smiling next to it.

I have no use for your Bambist attitudes on hunting. I couldn't care less if you think its sick. The governments that license people like that lady hunter have made a determination that such activity works for the benefit of the citizenry of that country and buttinskis from other countries who have no clue don't matter to them

Its time people like you stop pretending that your stilted and silly version of what is morality should be imposed on more clear thinking and realistic individuals and governments
 
Just an aside...

Do understand the conditions that domesticated elephants usually face? I think that's the irony of your post. Hunting a wild animal in a fair chase hunt.. where the animal.. as demonstrated, has a chance. And that animal has lived his life till a ripe old age out in the wild... and then he falls to a clean kill from a hunters bullet?

That's way more human than the conditions that domesticated elephants face.

I am not saying poachers got to raise a herd of elephants like they do cows for their Ivory(I am surprised no one has done that yet).Fishermen don't raise fish for fishing, nor do deer hunters raise deer for hunting.All I am saying is that if they are going after the ivory it makes more sense to tranquilize the elephant and take it's tusks instead of killing the animal.Because if the animal is dead it's tusks do not grow back nor does the animal reproduce. Which is why I said that what the poachers do is akin to chopping down the whole fruit tree for it's fruit.
 
There is a distinct possibility that the elephant owes its existance to managed big game hunting. Several African countries protect their herds very well and now there are more elephants locally than the range can supporta nd they are now eating crops.

Well thought out big game hunting not only allows the local elephant herds to be managed, but as big game hunts are very expensive permit wise and involve alot of "over the top" luxury accomodations, they bring alot of money into the local economy. As another poster mentioned, the people in the area then see the animals as a renewable recesource that they need to protect- instead of viewing them as 10 ton pests.

excellent point. the revenue derived from big game hunters is why countries such as Botswana and Namibia have made serious efforts to protect game animals from poachers and farmers (who often kill animals like Elephants for knocking down cattle fences etc or killing lions and leopards for taking livestock)
 
Back
Top Bottom