Veteran big game hunter dies after elephant, felled by gunfire, collapses on him

Isjs wrote:

Ironical wrote:

The article attributes the huge decline from poaching, which is mostly for the ivory. Ironically, big game hunters who legally hunt animals provide a significant source of income and generate incentives/funding for conservation. Big game hunters in Africa don't want these animals to go extinct or to lose their habitat any less than our forum's resident vegans.

I have no desire to hunt, but however unpalatable some find the sport, truth is these hunters often do more in real terms for these animals than their critics.

That makes as much sense as sacrificing 1 woman to be raped for money in order to raise money for rape prevention and awareness for all other women.

False comparison. Question: how much money have you donated to support habitat conservation in Africa?

broken arrow wrote:

So ridiculous to shoot an Elephant. And then what? leave the carcass there to rot. I understand people that hunt something and then eat the meat, but to kill an animal just to kill it makes no sense.

There is a huge legal/illegal ivory trade.

Isjs wrote:

Is it better to kill people with "low IQs" or mental inabilities than unimpaired people?

Yes.

random letter dude strikes! wrote:

Well random letter dude, you clearly have decided that it's OK to kill the no IQ fruits and veggies.

The name is clearly "Isjs" not "random letter dude". Yes. However, if it is shown that fruits and veggies experience things like feeling pain AND a desire to not be killed, then I will not think it is ok any longer.

Ironical wrote:

Isjs wrote:

That makes as much sense as sacrificing 1 woman to be raped for money in order to raise money for rape prevention and awareness for all other women.

False comparison. Question: how much money have you donated to support habitat conservation in Africa?

Off the top of my head, somewhere between $100 and $1000. Please explain how that makes it a false comparison. The logic is the same. I don't see what you disagree with.

The Roadkill Warrior wrote:

Cool beans dude! wrote:

If you drove past a dead person in the road you'd probably stop

I do. If they are fresh they are mighty fine eating.

Interesting. I might try that.

Isjs wrote:

1) elephants are not more or less intelligent than chickens . . .

INCORRECT

By an ENORMOUS margin

This Manly Man wrote:

Isjs wrote:

1) elephants are not more or less intelligent than chickens . . .

INCORRECT

By an ENORMOUS margin

I'm open to being wrong, but you'll have to use actual proof not just capital letters.

Nemesis - A righteous infliction of retribution manifest by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by a 15,000 pound elephant.

I don't really have any problem with hunting as I eat meat, but I have always felt hunting would be more sporting if there were a realistic chance at death for the person doing the hunting. Spears and arrows seem more sporting than high powered rifles at long distances.

Isjs wrote:

This Manly Man wrote:

INCORRECT

By an ENORMOUS margin

I'm open to being wrong, but you'll have to use actual proof not just capital letters.

ANY elephant and ANY chicken would get ZERO score on an IQ test.

Trombone wrote:

Poetic Justice wrote:

Possible Darwin award winner.

Since I am a Person of Faith, I'm going with Divine Intervention. This is some Old Testament sh*t. Just page through the Old Testament and see how many people God decides to smite. Like more than 100.

LOL @ your stupid religious convictions.

Bobby Chulo wrote:

This guy has his head on straight. I support your position.

I know you're not referring to the hunter. I would imagine his head is quite crooked these days. Hahahahaha....

bricktop wrote:

I don't really have any problem with hunting as I eat meat, but I have always felt hunting would be more sporting if there were a realistic chance at death for the person doing the hunting. Spears and arrows seem more sporting than high powered rifles at long distances.

If you do not need to eat meat to survive (you don't), then, in general, hunting is just as bad as poaching. Also, how is it sporting if the animal is not consensually participating and you do not have an equal chance at death?

Isjs wrote:

If you do not need to eat meat to survive (you don't), then, in general, hunting is just as bad as poaching. Also, how is it sporting if the animal is not consensually participating and you do not have an equal chance at death?

Fishing is even worse. Not to mention picking exotic fruits we don't need at all.

let's not stop there wrote:

Isjs wrote:

If you do not need to eat meat to survive (you don't), then, in general, hunting is just as bad as poaching. Also, how is it sporting if the animal is not consensually participating and you do not have an equal chance at death?

Fishing is even worse. Not to mention picking exotic fruits we don't need at all.

I agree about fishing. Especially sport fishing where they have no intention of eating the fish. The kind where they catch them and throw them back. Your fruit idea does not make sense in this conversation. Fruit does not have an identified sense of pain and will.

Isjs wrote:

random letter dude strikes! wrote:

Well random letter dude, you clearly have decided that it's OK to kill the no IQ fruits and veggies.

The name is clearly "Isjs" not "random letter dude". Yes. However, if it is shown that fruits and veggies experience things like feeling pain AND a desire to not be killed, then I will not think it is ok any longer.

Today it is, but not tomorrow. You should eat sand just in case.

Girl tries very hard for Darwin award.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4539206/amp/Girl-grabbed-sea-lion-wasn-t-feeding-says-dad.html

can't wait wrote:

Today it is, but not tomorrow. You should eat sand just in case.

So what? What point are you trying to make? Tomorrow my name will not be "random letter dude".

No, I should not eat sand just in case. Show me proof first. I'm not going to unnecessarily act preemptively.

Isjs wrote:

Ironical wrote:

False comparison. Question: how much money have you donated to support habitat conservation in Africa?

Off the top of my head, somewhere between $100 and $1000. Please explain how that makes it a false comparison. The logic is the same. I don't see what you disagree with.

Interesting. One South African elephant license for a single trip costs $38,000. You equate a licensed hunter killing an elephant with someone raping a woman, and then you ask why it is a false comparison.