Cecil the Lion killed by American poacher

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by codynw

Try to justify trophy hunting of any species, even one that's not endangered, without sounding like a ######.

You can't.

I thought so too but this makes sense...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/s...gged-his-prey/

The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Trophy hunt all you want, just make sure you make use of the rest of the animal. I have no problem with someone killing an animal and mounting their head or whatever as long as that's not the sole reason you killed it.

I don't even understand why you'd do this to be honest. Do people honestly believe it's some sort of accomplishment to hide in a bush and shoot at defenseless animals?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't even understand why you'd do this to be honest. Do people honestly believe it's some sort of accomplishment to hide in a bush and shoot at defenseless animals?

Well are you a vegetarian? I'm not so I don't feel I'm in the right criticizing hunters even though I'm would never hunt and I like animals. I'm a city kid who had literally shot a gun once in his life and I have nothing to say as it would make me a hypocrite.

Trophy hunting an endangered species is obviously quite different than shooting a buck, mounting the head and eating the meat. One I accept, the other I do not.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I thought so too but this makes sense...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/s...gged-his-prey/

How is it up to people to interfere with something going on in nature? He was endangering his own herd? Ok, so do we just shoot people that endanger the rest of us? I would venture to guess that paying to kill awful human beings would do a lot more for conserving wildlife of all kinds, including us.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't even understand why you'd do this to be honest. Do people honestly believe it's some sort of accomplishment to hide in a bush and shoot at defenseless animals?

There are completely legitimate conservation reasons to support the practice of hunting and humans have a hunter aspect to our nature. I have nothing against responsible hunting practices and people getting satisfaction from hunting if done in sport (i.e., if there is an actual tracking component). For t so be a sport, there should at least be a 50% chance that you will leave empty handed. And of course, only if the animals being hunted have healthy populations.

It's not the fact that he killed an animal that bothers me. It is that he baited the animal and circumvented conservation efforts to do it.

Personally, I have never hunted or even fired a weapon for that matter. In fact, growing up, my parents were so against guns that I wasn't even allowed to play with water guns or point fingers and make "gun sounds". I realize that it was over the top, but they had reasons for it.... but I digress.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Well are you a vegetarian? I'm not so I don't feel I'm in the right criticizing hunters even though I'm would never hunt and I like animals. I'm a city kid who had literally shot a gun once in his life and I have nothing to say as it would make me a hypocrite.

Trophy hunting an endangered species is obviously quite different than shooting a buck, mounting the head and eating the meat. One I accept, the other I do not.

I wasn't criticizing. I just don't get it. It seems very fetishistic to me.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not my right nor yours, sitting behind a computer screen, to mete out life-destroying "justice" to human beings because we, in our subjective wisdom, have decided that it's "necessary" in this case. .

In a free society, everything not forbidden is permitted. He has the right to go off and spend his money to skirt poaching laws to hunt lions, and we have the right to find that deplorable and express our opinion in public to that effect.

Whether people should exercise that right in a particular situation is another question entirely, but to say it's not our right to do so is utterly and completely wrong. If you're going to argue against internet shaming, you need to demonstrate why a particular issue isn't worthy of the outrage, and not argue uselessly that people don't have the right to feel and express outrage at all because it's "subjective".

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by MattyC

How is it up to people to interfere with something going on in nature? He was endangering his own herd? Ok, so do we just shoot people that endanger the rest of us? I would venture to guess that paying to kill awful human beings would do a lot more for conserving wildlife of all kinds, including us.

Wildlife conservation does this sort of thing all the time. We kill diseased critters in order to protect the herd too. It makes total sense to manage an endangered species in this way. -- Yes, we should kill dangerous people too. Duh.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I wasn't criticizing. I just don't get it. It seems very fetishistic to me.

I don't get it either, I couldn't force myself to kill something much less take enjoyment from it. I'm just glad I live in the era I do so I don't have to hunt to survive, I'd be dead inside of one month.

Hunting endangered species and poaching is a whole other thing though. Even on a practical level, the world would be a better place if those guys were shot into the sun via catapult.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I don't get it either, I couldn't force myself to kill something much less take enjoyment from it. I'm just glad I live in the era I do so I don't have to hunt to survive, I'd be dead inside of one month.

I'll go out of my way to avoid killing a bug, I'm such a wuss with stuff like that. The last time I purposely stepped on a bug outside I thought 'Was that really necessary?'...I'm such a hippy . I can't even imagine going into an animals habitat, luring them out of a protected area with a promise of a good meal, with the sole intention of killing them for their head & skin. Deplorable doesn't even brush the surface of this guys character IMO. Hunting for food & sustenance: sure, as long as you do so legally & responsibly. But hunting for sport like this is beyond despicable in my eyes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This pretty much sums up killing for sport

NSFW!

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

This pretty much sums up killing for sport

NSFW!

this is fantastic. Thank you for posting and exactly how I feel.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I'd wish we could hunt Ricky Gervais for sport.

[Nyah]

I think Ricky Gervais' only redeeming quality is his support and outspokenness in regards to animal rights.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jammies

In a free society, everything not forbidden is permitted.

I thought I was clear that I was arguing for regulation here. That is, we should find a way to curtail this behaviour at least in some situations, somehow, so that the most serious consequences of wrongdoing are not meted out by a largely faceless (by virtue of sheer volume and geographical diversity) mob. Many of whom don't see the target as a human being, really, and are in large part just amusing themselves.

we have the right to find that deplorable and express our opinion in public to that effect.

Sure. The issue is gleefully doing so en-masse in a manner wholly disproportionate to the original incident. A lot of outrage - and I'm not talking specifically about this situation because this guy is wholly unsympathetic - is just opportunistic. It seems like people are just waiting for the next chance to frantically stimulate themselves to a schadenfreude infused ragegasm. In many cases, this victimizes people who don't deserve it, even if they DID screw up. Is the reaction excessive here? Up for debate... though I'm inclined to say that while poaching is bad, if I were crafting a sentence for what this guy did, it wouldn't involve losing his business and being made a social pariah.

There honestly aren't many crimes that should be punishable with what is effectively a global scale version of being tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Whether people should exercise that right in a particular situation is another question entirely, but to say it's not our right to do so is utterly and completely wrong. If you're going to argue against internet shaming, you need to demonstrate why a particular issue isn't worthy of the outrage, and not argue uselessly that people don't have the right to feel and express outrage at all because it's "subjective".

Just in connection to the above, in an ideal world where people are behaving rationally I would agree. Unfortunately, the argument as to whether an incident deserves the outrage it gets is utterly beside the point - it really doesn't matter if it's worthy of the outrage if people are aiming to find an outlet to shame in the first place. Or just a target to direct a mob at for the sake of it.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by jammies

In a free society, everything not forbidden is permitted. He has the right to go off and spend his money to skirt poaching laws to hunt lions, and we have the right to find that deplorable and express our opinion in public to that effect.

Whether people should exercise that right in a particular situation is another question entirely, but to say it's not our right to do so is utterly and completely wrong. If you're going to argue against internet shaming, you need to demonstrate why a particular issue isn't worthy of the outrage, and not argue uselessly that people don't have the right to feel and express outrage at all because it's "subjective".

Where does internet shaming fall in the right to express opinion? That is the key here.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Where does internet shaming fall in the right to express opinion? That is the key here.

Well, unfortunately jammies is right, there's nothing illegal about it and the public has every right to engage in it, and lots do.

What me and others are arguing is that it is repulsive behavior due to the outcome severely outdoing the "crime" committed in most cases.

This is a tough thread to have this debate in as it's kind of one of the examples where somebody actually did do something incredibly terrible and likely won't see any lawful punishment for it.

But eventually our society is going to be forced to take steps to intervene, imo. Whether it's through enough stories emerging of people being driven to ruin and suicide and therefore the public themselves takes a step back and goes "wow, okay I get what we're doing now, I want no part of this, going forward", or whether it's laws being enacted (yes, I get that it would be tricky to do so, but I strongly believe an attempt will be made), likely tied into anti-bullying measures.

I know I'm on the minority side of this debate, but I disagree with Resolute and others that say "It's here, it's not going away, it is what it is" etc. I think we will see a major shift as more and more people begin to understand what the consequences of these internet shaming campaigns are.

[GirlySports]

Yeah there is a balance somewhere. Like the bulldog left in a car in Vancouver. The girl who filmed the argument has taken the video down. Says she wants to bring awareness to dogs but not internet shame the guy

[Nyah]

Unfortunately in the Internet age, especially when you have a topic is as polarizing as killing for sport, you will have people who are hardlined against it. People who become violently angry when they see an animal such as this killed for no reason other than to stoke the "hunters" ego. In this case, it's a large majority of people. I'm not saying the public shaming is the right course of justice, but there's absolutely no way to curb people who find this topic disgusting from displaying their displeasure online. Whether it be through Twitter, Facebook, or comments on news stories online. People will absolutely find a way to shame someone that they think is totally and completely wrong in their decisions & actions. I don't know what the answer is. I don't feel that people should watch what they do, but at the same time I think it's prudent to be aware that the decisions people make might not be within the confines of their social groups anymore. Is that right? I don't think so, but as the last couple of years have shown us, that doesn't really mean anything anymore, it's just the way things are now. Especially when it involves topics like this. Unlike flameswin, I really don't see how shaming like this can be curbed. And in some scenarios, public shaming and public awareness via social media has done a lot of good. So again, who knows what the answer is.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I'm of the opinion that killing for fun makes you a selfish ****