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

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.

OK, so how many Chicken acts were there at Ringling Bros Circus?

Isjs wrote:

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.

Sure it will.

Did you fast for the first part of your life until you figured out what you could eat?

If humans stop eating meat we will evolve back to having tiny brains like we used to have.

Some on here like rld have already begun this descent.

oddlkd wrote:

Sure it will.

Did you fast for the first part of your life until you figured out what you could eat?

Why are you sure it will? I have no plans on making that my posting name tomorrow.

No, I did not fast. Why are you asking me random questions?

(I changed my name to "jdjd" from "isjs" if you did not follow that)

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.

I dunno. Capital letters have always seemed pretty convincing to me!

"Most contemporary ethologists view the elephant as one of the world's most intelligent animals. With a mass of just over 5 kg (11 lb), an elephant's brain has more mass than that of any other land animal, and although the largest whales have body masses twenty times those of a typical elephant, a whale's brain is barely twice the mass of an elephant's brain. In addition, elephants have a total of 300 billion neurons.[1] Elephant brains are similar to humans' in terms of general connectivity and areas. The elephant cortex has as many neurons as a human brain,[2] suggesting convergent evolution"

. . .

If you are interested you'll have to read a bit. If you are not, nothing I can do.

Isjs wrote:

Fruit does not have an identified sense of pain and will.

Wut? You're ignorant.

Ever heard of touch-me-not flowers? Don't plants have a will to reach for sun light?

You're trying to rationalize your predatory life by ignoring . "Plant cells" and "animal cells" are a thing of the long forgotten past. If anything, there are only living cells. A plant can be an animal and an animal can be a plant.

You're a predator, just like the dead elephant hunter. Stop whining and deal with it.

Jdjd wrote:

oddlkd wrote:

Sure it will.

Did you fast for the first part of your life until you figured out what you could eat?

Why are you sure it will? I have no plans on making that my posting name tomorrow.

No, I did not fast. Why are you asking me random questions?

Eat meat folks or this will happen to you.

Isjs wrote:

Ironical wrote:

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.

You are not making very much sense to me. What does the cost of a license have to do with this? Yes, I asked why it is a false comparison. You still have not explained why you think it is a false comparison.

All you did was state the cost of a license and then lie about what I said. I never equated a licensed hunter with raping a woman. You made that up.

Recall that my larger point is that big game hunters -- as odious as you/we may find them and their sport -- do support conservation efforts and are concerned about habitat and possible extinction of their quarry. Their support for such habitat comes in a variety of ways, including not only charitable donations, but licensing fees. These licensing fees are fairly substantial, as my second post indicated. In real terms, they arguably do more than you do for elephants and their habitat.

Further, recall that in your response, you critiqued my statement as illogical. Specifically, you said it is like "sacrificing 1 woman to be raped for money in order to raise money for rape prevention and awareness for all other women."

To spell this out: you constructed an analogy in an attempt to undermine my assertion that hunters actually support conservation efforts. This analogy functions as follows: your point "sacrificing 1 woman to be raped" corresponds to the idea of a licensed elephant hunter killing an elephant. Your conclusion, "in order to raise money for rape prevention," intends to correspond to my point that said hunter paradoxically actually support conservation efforts.

You may or may not truly believe that a licensed hunter killing an elephant is comparable to rape. However, to say that I made up your comparison is quite evidently false.

For those of you who failed to read the article:

They were not hunting elephants. They were just out in the bush, and a herd of elephants charged them. Any shots they fired were in self-defense and the entire incident is largely an unfortunate, multi-species accident.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

Cool beans dude! wrote:

Disagree with it all you want, but celebrating his death is crass and unbecoming. He left a family behind.

If his family was important to him he wouldn't choose something that is dangerous. Big game hunters know they could very easily die everyday they go hunting. If the thrill of killing an animal trumps seeing your family and spending time with them, then it is what it is.

I do at least agree with you that animals are inferior. Evolution put us on the pedestal to crush any animals that try to challenge our dominance. This is why guns were made. We needed a way to fight dangerous animals that were killing our families. Unless these elephants are running through villages killing children then I don't see any point to go hunt them today.

Even if humans were higher on the Darwinian totem pole, that doesn't make it alright to commit needless destruction on the rest of nature, quite the contrary, that means we have a greater responsibility to uphold the balance and order of the natural world. Nature doesn't operate based on linear hierarchies, it's a circular ecosystem, so every animal serves a purpose within that system. Remember, the rest of the natural world would go on without humans, but the same could not be said for the opposite.

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.

I like this guy, Isjs!

The manly man, I find it interesting that you're trying compare intelligence levels between two seperate species. It's already difficult enough to compare the different types of intelligences between humans, now you're moving to new species?

Either way, the intelligence of a being should not determine the value of their lives.

koala brains wrote:

Jdjd wrote:

Why are you sure it will? I have no plans on making that my posting name tomorrow.

No, I did not fast. Why are you asking me random questions?

Eat meat folks or this will happen to you.

If you don't eat meat you will become more susceptible to internet trolls?

Your post is flawed. In order of your paragraphs...

My contribution to elephant preservation is completely irrelevant. I never said that I do more or less for the elephants. You are creating arguments that never existed.

Your next statement is a lie. I did not critique your statement as illogical.

Your 3rd paragraph is the first accurate thing that you have posted in this reply. This interpretation of my analogy is accurate. Your previous interpretation was not. I did not say that killing an elephant is comparable to rape. You completely made that up. The ACTUAL comparison/analogy was sacrificing a minority of the population in order to protect the majority of the population.

Your final paragraph repeats your previous dishonesty. You DID made up the comparison. You twisted my words. This is evidently true. Don't be a liar.

gardener wrote:

Wut? You're ignorant.

Ever heard of touch-me-not flowers? Don't plants have a will to reach for sun light?

You're trying to rationalize your predatory life by ignoring . "Plant cells" and "animal cells" are a thing of the long forgotten past. If anything, there are only living cells. A plant can be an animal and an animal can be a plant.

You're a predator, just like the dead elephant hunter. Stop whining and deal with it.

That flower behavior is not necessarily will. So far, it is just physics and chemical reactions. A plant cannot be an animal. An animal cannot be a plant. Each word has a definition and refers to different types of entities. I'm not whining. I'm not a predator. There is nothing to deal with.

This Manly Man wrote:

. . .

If you are interested you'll have to read a bit. If you are not, nothing I can do.

I do research in a related field. I am familiar with this type of stuff. You are misinterpreting all of it. The number of neurons and the size of the brain does not determine how intelligent something is. Thank you for at least providing more than just capital letters, but your reading of this material is inaccurate.

gardener wrote:

Isjs wrote:

Fruit does not have an identified sense of pain and will.

Wut? You're ignorant.

Ever heard of touch-me-not flowers? Don't plants have a will to reach for sun light?

You're trying to rationalize your predatory life by ignoring . "Plant cells" and "animal cells" are a thing of the long forgotten past. If anything, there are only living cells. A plant can be an animal and an animal can be a plant.

You're a predator, just like the dead elephant hunter. Stop whining and deal with it.

Glad to see this thread is bringing out to greatest minds on letsrun...

Why is it that people who are the least educated on a subject, feel the desire to speak the most on it?

[quote]Isjs wrote:

I do research in a related field. I am familiar with this type of stuff. quote]

stop it.

Isjs wrote:

You twisted my words.

Not at all. I quoted you directly.

In any case, you answered your own question, why it your comparison false? By your own admission, it seems, licensing hunters is not like "sacrificing 1 woman to be raped." The two initial postulates are not similar, therefore your analogy fails.

You are quite disingenuous by the way.