They hunted and killed a baby elephant!

Watch how you talk about my wife.

 

Never seen the movie so I cannot relate it to an abortion, but I can relate to the idea that killing a fetus, because is not developed into a "human" can be pushed by the left to expand the killing of "others' who did not as well,... even after birth.

Plug that idea into single payer healthcare and it can become actually possible that those deemed "useless" to society can be eliminated, because doing so becomes cost effective to the overall program.

Why dump resources into those who contribute nothing into the plan, at the detriment of those who do?

True Socialism.

 

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal.

 

I had not heard anything about the movie when I watched it and missed that part. Nothing else about the movie interested me enough to watch it again to confirm or deny that rumor.

Now with you guys bringing wives and baby elephants up in the same context I’m a bit afraid to go to sleep tonight on the account of the nightmares I may have. Thanks.

 

I've never seen anyone on the left push anything like that. A being that isn't born vs one that is, is a fairly easily discernible difference. You conflate socialism with Stalinism, and I don't think even Stalin went that far.

 

If there was a "personal attack" then it originally stems from the member doing the projecting, not me!

Please quote the PF rule that defines what exactly constitutes a "legitimate response" and use your own content above as an example as to how it applies to the "ongoing discussion" of the murder of the baby elephant.

Alternatively, if you can't provide any of the above, then explain why I could not report your post on the basis of it being a deliberate attempt on your part to bait me into making an emotional response given that you just threatened me with being "reported"?

If I recall correctly that is called "baiting and reporting" and yes, it does qualify as a rule infraction.

FTR it appears as though every single thread that involves firearms ALWAYS goes down the exact same path. Some firearm atrocity occurs and the NRA supporters immediately leap to the defense of the person toting the gun. No legitimate criticism is allowed and then the meritless kneejerk allegation regarding abortion always comes up. But we never see that being "reported" as an "absence of a legitimate response" by those defending firearm atrocities.

Why is that?

 

Where is the credible source for this allegation?

 

I posted an alalogy to demonstrate the idea that killing humanely is still killing. Since that post you have done nothing but call my argument asinine, accuse me of making baseless allegations (which I disproved), and accused me of projection that doesn’t exist.

I’m fine with all of that because while I prefer debate based on substance I also find value in observing the point where substance fades. If you have a problem with my posts or how I’ve interacted with you by all means report me. Or return to adding substance as before to this interesting thread because disagreement fosters learning and I’m here to learn. Or post more hysterical emojis. It’s all good.

 

Yeah, so the chances of wounding and maiming are increased. Ethical hunting is about harvesting meat in the most humane way. Anytime someone says such a thing, they prove they have zero idea what ethical hunting is about.

The fair comes to town once a year and someones late.

 

Here is a NEWSFLASH!

That post was NOT a response to one of yours!

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion regarding the content of your posts however that does not alter the fact that you were called out for posting a disingenuous strawman.

 

So Bushmen who hunt with bows and arrows and drive an antelope to the point of exhaustion prior to killing it are "unethical" even though they do it only to feed their families and NOT for trophies?

Does that make wolf packs "unethical" since they use similar tactics to feed their families?

How about lions using ambush tactics or cheetahs that run down their prey? Obviously all of these hunting methods are "inhumane" and therefore "unethical" even though their ONLY purpose is to feed themselves and their families.

To allege that there is anything "ethical" about TROPHY hunting is absurd.

A baby elephant was MURDERED for no better reason that to collect a meaningless trophy and bragging rights. There is NOTHING in the least bit "ethical" about WHY that was done.

 

Is was raised to be killed, as such it's nothing than livestock, animals do not have rights therefore killing it regardless of age is ethical as that was it's only purpose for living and being raised, just like a heard of cows on a ranch.

And killing it with a single shot is the proper hence the use of a rather high caliber rifle.

By they way animals are slaughtered, they are not murdered, that's a legal term which doesn't apply to animals.

Murder.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

 

The meat from trophy hunted animals is not harvested for human consumption. That is a myth by hunting communities to con the naive west. The majority of killed animals are left to rot or be burnt or be eaten by scavengers such as hyenas or vultures.

 

In many cases it is harvested by the locals as part of the agreement with the wildlife managers.

According to Marnewecke, the going rate for a 14-day, single elephant hunt is about $80,000. The trophy hunt limit of five elephants a year in Nyae Nyae represents real money to the San. A portion of the fee is paid directly to community members and to a fund for conservation projects to protect the area’s wildlife. As for the elephant trophies themselves, the client would take the tusks home, while the meat would all go to the San.

However even if it didn't what difference does it make, the animals are being raised to be hunted?

 

That happened because the dominant older males were killed or removed by humans from the herd leaving teenage males in charge who all reached sexual peak at the same time resulting in aggressive behavior against all animals. The time of sexual peak in teenage males is altered in a herd when there is a dominant male. In conclusion, your claim is a direct effect of human interaction

 

Then would it not make sense to hunt and kill the younger male elephants to avoid such a development occurring?

 

Which doesn't happen in a managed facility.

 

It would for that reason plus it provides more livestock to hunt in a shorter amount of time.

 

Wrong. A very small percentage of the meat is consumed by humans. That claim is used to sell the event to the west otherwise they would not make the claim.

And very little of that $80,000 goes to the local inhabitants - it goes to the organizers. And here is a link about the illegal activities carried out by the owner Buzz Charlton of The hunting company Charlton McCallum Hunting Safaris mentioned in the OP, and also including illegal activities by many other safari hunting companies.

http://www.cfuzim.org/index.php/new...er-denies-damaging-claims-of-illegal-activity

 

The article cited on the part of yourself is nothing but unverified claims and accusations. Where is the actual proof to support these accusations?

 

The claim by the hunting community is that the older non productive animals are hunted which is again a myth perpetrated by the hunting community

 

LOL. You did not even bother to read the link! One of the accused admitted that it is true but he and his brother were the only ones with valid licenses.

 

This claim on the part of yourself disputes and contradicts the previous claim made on the part of yourself pertaining to hunting.

They hunted and killed a baby elephant!

First you claim the older males were killed by humans. Now you are claiming they are not killed by humans. Only one of these standards can be regarded as factually correct. Which one is it?

 

Which, again, are merely claims. Where is the actual evidence to support the accusations?

Beyond that particular matter, the article appears to fail to differentiate between legitimate hunting and illegal poaching. The two are not in any way similar to one another. How is legitimate hunting at issue when those apparently in charge are corrupt and taking bribes from poachers?

 

Wrong. It happened in a managed facility where they split up a herd leaving one herd with no dominant male