[Dusty]

What I learned about this incident:

Cute animals > people

[robreke]

I grew up hunting. Love it. But canned/caged hunts are a farce and I've no respect for those hunters.

I suppose something like this would have been a more 'justifiable' kill, at least to media types:

[TheSlayer]

Sounds like he didn't give the lion a quick death either:

Quote:

Cecil was lured from a protected zone with an animal carcass, maimed with a bow and arrow and then left to bleed for 40 agonizing hours until Palmer shot him again with a rifle.

The article is expectedley biased against the dentist and I will try to fact check this but I can't support this when lions are a threatened species already.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/201...menon.html

[Troll King]

(07-29-2015 06:00 PM)monster Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:29 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

Here's the Dr. with a rhino he killed...with a bow.

Sorry, killing a rhino with a bow does not give these two doofus-looking guys any alpha cred.

Is that a fucking fanny pack on one of them?

Yeah. I don't think you can actually kill a rhino with a bow. I may be wrong, I don't hunt even though I am not really against it. I just don't come from a hunting family and haven't had an opportunity to actually go hunting. I have carved up game meat as a butcher before and do some gardening/farming.

But I really don't think you are going to take down a rhino with a compound bow. You need a really high caliber round to not only get past its thick flesh but to penetrate it body and bone.

[TigerMandingo]

This thread reminded me of a guy I have a serious amount of respect for: Kevin Richardson (the "Lion Whisperer").



The guy used to work for one of these parks where canned hunts take place and got sick of it. He took a few dozen lions with him and opened up a sanctuary in South Africa. You can watch his stuff on Youtube, and think whatever you want, but from what I've seen, he legitimately loves and cares about the lions and has a special bond with them. Whatever his fate may be, he is actually doing something to conserve the lion population and is trying to get the word out there.

Hate to sound sentimental, but the world needs more people like this and less of these asswipe trophy hunters.

[Troll King]

(07-29-2015 06:12 PM)robreke Wrote:  

I grew up hunting. Love it. But canned/caged hunts are a farce and I've no respect for those hunters.

I suppose something like this would have been a more 'justifiable' kill, at least to media types:

Fuckin shit man. I wasn't expecting that. That is one fierce tiger.

[kaotic]

Looks like a gay hunting expeditions to me

[scorpion]

I don't really understand the appeal of these type of canned trophy hunts. It's comparable to a guy collecting a photo album of the hottest prostitutes he fucked. In both cases he doesn't have to exhibit much if anything in the way of skill or dedication, he just pays his money, shows up and goes through the motions.

That being said, the only thing more pathetic than canned trophy hunting is the response to this story. The selective outrage is mindboggling, nonsensical and totally out of proportion to what actually occurred. As was pointed out, Planned Parenthood is literally trafficking in the organs of aborted babies (it's difficult to imagine anything more depraved or ghoulish, especially as a matter of official organizational policy) and no one bats an eye, but this guy shoots a lion and people go apeshit. Yeah, maybe a dick move on his part, but it's a fucking animal on the other side of planet. Let's get a grip here.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-29-2015 12:29 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

Here are some protesters outside the Dr.'s house...so brave.

I can't tell if these clowns are millenials or what but this picture pretty much sums up present day "activism" for me. It's all about dressing up in some ironic outfit, wearing a shirt with an ironic slogan, or holding up a sign with a meme that comes from 4chan. These "young" adults basically still have a pacifier in their mouth and are playing with legos.

This is not activism it's letting other middle America trend whores and suburban hipsters around you know that you're in tune with the times, man.

When push comes to shove none of them will actually put themselves in real danger or jeopardize their personal livelihood for a cause. To them activism is just another way to get facebook likes and attention on twitter. It's something to do on a friday afternoon before you hit up the brew pub to sip on some craft beers.

[WalterBlack]

(07-29-2015 01:44 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I'm tired of all the white knighting for animals in general personally.

I have little interest in hunting myself but I can't stand all the self-righteousness that comes along with all this animal rights nonsense. The concept of "rights" shouldn't even apply to animals in general and I agree that a large part of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth you see over sports hunting as well as the rising popularity of veganism is mostly due to tendency of people in the West to anthropomorphize animals. You take these human categories and concepts and transpose them into the animal kingdom where they simply have no meaning, to me it's totally incoherent.

A lot of times I wonder if the reason why so many Westerners seem so much more enamored with animals and the concept of animal rights is because of how much more common pet ownership is here. I'm a non-Westerner (though I did grow up in the US) and never really had any pets growing up and for a long time I've always found a lot of these animal rights campaign to be bizarre. I remember being in Taiwan and watching my grandmother behead chickens for dinner which I'm guessing is not a common experience for a lot of people here. I'm guessing being cut off from the "circle of life" the way a lot of 1st world Westerners are allows them to have this idealized view of what animals are supposed to be.

I don’t really give a fuck about animals - humans come first. I have no problem with fox hunting or any other kind of hunting, as long as the animals are not driven to extinction.

People are now so fucked up that they consider animals children - I remember overhearing somebody talking about the amount of hassle having 2 (human) kids in her life. Then another lady says, “yeah my 2 kids are hard to deal with too”. The bitch was talking about 2 dogs that she owed.

I once asked an American lady why she doesn’t eat lamb. She said because of Bambi. Bambi is a fucking deer!

I found this article online

Why People Care More About Pets Than Other Humans

Quote:

We love our pets. Two thirds of Americans live with an animal, and according to a 2011 Harris poll, 90 percent of pet owners think of their dogs and cats as members of the family. These relationships have benefits. For example, in a survey by the American Animal Hospital Association, 40 percent of married female dog owners reported they received more emotional support from their pet than from their husband or their kids. The pet products industry calls this “the humanization of pets.” One of my colleagues recently spent $12,000 on cancer treatments for her best friend Asha, a Labrador retriever.

Newspaper editors tell me stories about animal abuse often generate more responses from upset readers than articles about violence directed toward humans. But do Americans really care more about pets than people?

Take, for example, police shootings. The FBI claims that about 400 people a year are killed by police in “justifiable homicides.” The number of incidents in which cops shoot dogs is very hard to pin down. You sometimes hear the claim that a dog is shot by a police officer “every 98 minutes.” That’s would be about 5,000 dogs a year. But Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7 thinks, based on his analyses of media reports, that the number of dogs killed each year in “confrontational incidents” with cops is probably between 300 and 500 – about the same as human cop shootings.

Because of high profile incidents like the death last week of Walter Scott in Charleston, South Carolina, and, of course, the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, death-by-cop is in the news. But, as is illustrated by two shootings that took place within 24 hours last year in Idaho, it is not always the case that we value people over pets.

On July 8, 2014, Jeanetta Riley, pregnant and a mother of two, was killed by police officers outside a hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho. Riley reportedly had a history of drug addiction and alcoholism, and she was drunk, incoherent, and waving a filet knife at the three police officers who showed up at the hospital. A dashboard video camera mounted on one of the police cars shows that Riley was at least 10 feet from the cops when they opened fire. Why the police opted to shoot Riley rather than zap a 100-pound woman with one of the Tasers they were carrying is unclear. The officers were subsequently exonerated, no apology was given to Riley’s family, and the story never made national news until it was recently dredged up by a reporter from The Guardian.

Fast forward 14 hours and travel 50 miles south to a café in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho where Craig Jones was eating lunch, having locked his dog Arfee in the cab of his van. Jones had rolled the windows part-way down so the dog would stay cool. Unfortunately, when the two-year old black Lab mix started barking, someone called the cops. Officer Dave Kelly caught the call. Kelly later claimed that when he approached the van, Arfee (who was initially described as a vicious pit bull) lunged at him, though the van’s window was mostly rolled up. Kelly put a bullet in Arfee’s chest.

This time the media did respond. A headline in the New York Daily News proclaimed “Idaho Cop Shoots, Kills Adorable Black Lab Named Arfee After Mistaking Him For Aggressive Pit Bull.” A “Justice For Arfee” Facebook Page was soon created, and a shadowy organization called “Anonymous” posted several ominous videos on YouTube vaguely threatening Coeur d’Alene police officers with retribution. Two months later, when a police review board ruled that the shooting of the dog was unjustified, the citizens of Coeur d’Alene staged a “Justice for Alfee” rally, demanding that Officer Kelly be fired. The police department issued an official apology to Jones who was awarded $80,000 in damages for the loss of his pet.

Testing the Pets Over People Hypothesis

As The Guardian article indicates, the mismatch between the public outrage over the shootings of a dog and a pregnant mom a mere 14 hours and 50 miles apart is striking. But was this an aberration? In the wake of Ferguson and now South Carolina, police shootings of human beings have been big news. Do the tragic cases of Jeanetta Riley and Arfee support the view that our love of animals trumps our concern for people?

Two sociologists at Northeastern University have tested the claim that people are more upset by news stories of animal abuse than they are about attacks directed toward humans. The researchers, Arnold Arluke, an authority on human-animal relationships, and Jack Levin, an expert on serial killers and mass murders, had college students read fake news accounts on a crime wave in Boston. For instance, one of the articles included the statement, “According to witnesses present, one particularly vicious assault involved a one-year-old puppy that was beaten with a baseball bat by an unknown assailant. Arriving on the scene a few minutes after the attack, a police officer found the victim with one broken leg, multiple lacerations, and unconscious. No arrests have been made in the case.”

The subjects in the experiment did not know the articles were bogus. Nor did they know that there were actually four slightly different versions of the newspaper articles, each portraying a different victim: a puppy, an adult dog, a human infant, or a human adult. After they read one of the four news stories, each subject completed a scale which measured how much empathy and emotional distress they felt for the victim of the beating.

Arluke and Levin reported the results of their study at the 2013 meeting of the American Sociological Association. As you might guess, the story in which the victim was a human adult elicited, by far, the lowest levels of emotional distress in the readers. The “winner” when it came to evoking empathy was not the puppy but the human infant. The puppy, however, came in a close second with the adult dog not far behind. Arluke and Levin concluded that species is important when it comes to generating sympathy with the downtrodden. But they argued that the critical difference in responses to the stories was based on our special concern for creatures that are innocent and defenseless.

Save Your Dog or a Stranger?

In another experiment, psychologists at Georgia Regents University also explored circumstances in which people value animals over human lives. In the study, 573 individuals were asked who they would save in a series of hypothetical scenarios in which a dog and a person were in the path of an out-of-control bus. The researchers found that decisions to save the person or the dog were affected by three factors. The first: who the person in danger was. The subjects were much more likely to save the dog over a foreign tourist than, say, their best friend or a sibling. The second factor was the dog. Forty percent of participants said they would save their personal pet at the expense of a foreign tourist. But only 14 percent claimed they would sacrifice the tourist when the animal in the scenario was described generically as “a dog.” Finally, as other studies have found, women care more about animals than men do. In the run-away-bus scenario, female subjects were nearly twice as likely as males to say they would save a dog over a person.

Living With Moral Inconsistency

The bottom line is that, at least in some circumstances, we do value animals over people. But the differences in public outrage over the deaths of Jeanetta Riley and Arfee illustrate a more general point. It is that our attitudes to other species are fraught with inconsistency. We share the earth with roughly 40,000 other kinds of vertebrate animals, but most of us only get bent out of shape over the treatment of a handful of species. You know the ones: the big-eye baby seals, circus elephants, chimpanzees, killer whales at Sea World, etc. And while we deeply love our pets, there is little hue and cry over the 24 horses that die on race tracks in the United States each week, let alone the horrific treatment of the nine billion broiler chickens American consume annually.

Most people, it seems, live easily with what the environmental philosopher Chris Diehm calls “the paradox of the cats in our houses and cows on our plates.” Go figure.

[speakeasy]

(07-29-2015 05:32 PM)Troll King Wrote:  

One thing he said gave me a real WTF moment. He said something along the lines of, "You know you live in a morally degenerate society when it is illegal to destroy Bald Eagle eggs but we allow abortions by the hundreds of thousands per year."

But the difference is humans aren't an endangered species. We've gone from 1 billion to 7 billion in just over 100 years and still growing. If there were 7 billion bald eagles you wouldn't hear things like that. There are more chickens on the planet than humans. Nobody cares about destroying their eggs, because chickens aren't under threat of extinction. That's the difference. If there was just a handful of humans on the planet and falling, I'm sure abortion would be banned.

[Dusty]

Pissed me off when Spielberg did this:

[spook]

This has gotta be the worst thing that's ever happened in Zimbabwe.

[TigerMandingo]

delete

[MKDAWUSS]

(07-29-2015 06:49 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

When push comes to shove none of them will actually put themselves in real danger or jeopardize their personal livelihood for a cause. To them activism is just another way to get facebook likes and attention on twitter. It's something to do on a friday afternoon before you hit up the brew pub to sip on some craft beers.

This especially occurs once a celebrity or the media circus gets in on it (one generally follows the other, though). It's amazing how places like Facebook have turned (or perhaps merely illustrated) just how "sheeple" the masses really are.

I'm surprised none of them have posted a pic of a lion as their profile photo.

[mastauser]

(07-29-2015 05:08 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 04:17 PM)mastauser Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:45 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

What a faggot.


There is something very degenerate about the way lunatics in the West anthropomorphize animals. They're beasts, that's all.
Meanwhile human babies are chopped up and sold for parts.

Thats what IS al

so says about 'infidels' and what the nazis said about Jews

Im not against hunting but do you know how the Chinese call animals? Dung-wu: moving thing. This causes rhinos and tigers to extinct etc.

Im noy holy either but less people should see animals like beasts in this world.

That is stone-cold retarded. Animals are literally beasts. I mean, what the fuck

You guys dont't see that this is related to how you are bringed up?

In Buddhism every living thing is respected and seen as having a soul.

On this forum the good things of buddhism are being used, such as non reactivity towards rejection etc.

Things like respect towards animals, as preached in Buddhism, is discarded on this forum.

Why? Because hunting animals is 'Masculine" and therefore good, according to the forum

Cherry picking!

Note: Im not against hunting, for population control and to obtain good meat.


And shall I tell you guys what? The most succesful and intelligent people in the world like animal conservation and nature, simply because they have time to enjoy nature! Mostly unsuccessfull losers are indifferent towards loss of biodiversity, as I told before, they never enjoy nature!

Believe me it is only .01% of rich people who hunt the big 5 for fun.

Get over it, hunting the big 5 is something of the past and these days not acceptable UNLESS there is a good reason to hunt a particular rhino or elephant or lion.

Read Norbert Elias: The civilisation process.

[Troll King]

Quote:

I don’t really give a fuck about animals - humans come first. I have no problem with fox hunting or any other kind of hunting, as long as the animals are not driven to extinction.

People are now so fucked up that they consider animals children - I remember overhearing somebody talking about the amount of hassle having 2 (human) kids in her life. Then another lady says, “yeah my 2 kids are hard to deal with too”. The bitch was talking about 2 dogs that she owed.

I once asked an American lady why she doesn’t eat lamb. She said because of Bambi. Bambi is a fucking deer!

I found this article online

Why People Care More About Pets Than Other Humans

Quote:

We love our pets. Two thirds of Americans live with an animal, and according to a 2011 Harris poll, 90 percent of pet owners think of their dogs and cats as members of the family. These relationships have benefits. For example, in a survey by the American Animal Hospital Association, 40 percent of married female dog owners reported they received more emotional support from their pet than from their husband or their kids. The pet products industry calls this “the humanization of pets.” One of my colleagues recently spent $12,000 on cancer treatments for her best friend Asha, a Labrador retriever.

Newspaper editors tell me stories about animal abuse often generate more responses from upset readers than articles about violence directed toward humans. But do Americans really care more about pets than people?

Take, for example, police shootings. The FBI claims that about 400 people a year are killed by police in “justifiable homicides.” The number of incidents in which cops shoot dogs is very hard to pin down. You sometimes hear the claim that a dog is shot by a police officer “every 98 minutes.” That’s would be about 5,000 dogs a year. But Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7 thinks, based on his analyses of media reports, that the number of dogs killed each year in “confrontational incidents” with cops is probably between 300 and 500 – about the same as human cop shootings.

Because of high profile incidents like the death last week of Walter Scott in Charleston, South Carolina, and, of course, the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, death-by-cop is in the news. But, as is illustrated by two shootings that took place within 24 hours last year in Idaho, it is not always the case that we value people over pets.

On July 8, 2014, Jeanetta Riley, pregnant and a mother of two, was killed by police officers outside a hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho. Riley reportedly had a history of drug addiction and alcoholism, and she was drunk, incoherent, and waving a filet knife at the three police officers who showed up at the hospital. A dashboard video camera mounted on one of the police cars shows that Riley was at least 10 feet from the cops when they opened fire. Why the police opted to shoot Riley rather than zap a 100-pound woman with one of the Tasers they were carrying is unclear. The officers were subsequently exonerated, no apology was given to Riley’s family, and the story never made national news until it was recently dredged up by a reporter from The Guardian.

Fast forward 14 hours and travel 50 miles south to a café in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho where Craig Jones was eating lunch, having locked his dog Arfee in the cab of his van. Jones had rolled the windows part-way down so the dog would stay cool. Unfortunately, when the two-year old black Lab mix started barking, someone called the cops. Officer Dave Kelly caught the call. Kelly later claimed that when he approached the van, Arfee (who was initially described as a vicious pit bull) lunged at him, though the van’s window was mostly rolled up. Kelly put a bullet in Arfee’s chest.

This time the media did respond. A headline in the New York Daily News proclaimed “Idaho Cop Shoots, Kills Adorable Black Lab Named Arfee After Mistaking Him For Aggressive Pit Bull.” A “Justice For Arfee” Facebook Page was soon created, and a shadowy organization called “Anonymous” posted several ominous videos on YouTube vaguely threatening Coeur d’Alene police officers with retribution. Two months later, when a police review board ruled that the shooting of the dog was unjustified, the citizens of Coeur d’Alene staged a “Justice for Alfee” rally, demanding that Officer Kelly be fired. The police department issued an official apology to Jones who was awarded $80,000 in damages for the loss of his pet.

Testing the Pets Over People Hypothesis

As The Guardian article indicates, the mismatch between the public outrage over the shootings of a dog and a pregnant mom a mere 14 hours and 50 miles apart is striking. But was this an aberration? In the wake of Ferguson and now South Carolina, police shootings of human beings have been big news. Do the tragic cases of Jeanetta Riley and Arfee support the view that our love of animals trumps our concern for people?

Two sociologists at Northeastern University have tested the claim that people are more upset by news stories of animal abuse than they are about attacks directed toward humans. The researchers, Arnold Arluke, an authority on human-animal relationships, and Jack Levin, an expert on serial killers and mass murders, had college students read fake news accounts on a crime wave in Boston. For instance, one of the articles included the statement, “According to witnesses present, one particularly vicious assault involved a one-year-old puppy that was beaten with a baseball bat by an unknown assailant. Arriving on the scene a few minutes after the attack, a police officer found the victim with one broken leg, multiple lacerations, and unconscious. No arrests have been made in the case.”

The subjects in the experiment did not know the articles were bogus. Nor did they know that there were actually four slightly different versions of the newspaper articles, each portraying a different victim: a puppy, an adult dog, a human infant, or a human adult. After they read one of the four news stories, each subject completed a scale which measured how much empathy and emotional distress they felt for the victim of the beating.

Arluke and Levin reported the results of their study at the 2013 meeting of the American Sociological Association. As you might guess, the story in which the victim was a human adult elicited, by far, the lowest levels of emotional distress in the readers. The “winner” when it came to evoking empathy was not the puppy but the human infant. The puppy, however, came in a close second with the adult dog not far behind. Arluke and Levin concluded that species is important when it comes to generating sympathy with the downtrodden. But they argued that the critical difference in responses to the stories was based on our special concern for creatures that are innocent and defenseless.

Save Your Dog or a Stranger?

In another experiment, psychologists at Georgia Regents University also explored circumstances in which people value animals over human lives. In the study, 573 individuals were asked who they would save in a series of hypothetical scenarios in which a dog and a person were in the path of an out-of-control bus. The researchers found that decisions to save the person or the dog were affected by three factors. The first: who the person in danger was. The subjects were much more likely to save the dog over a foreign tourist than, say, their best friend or a sibling. The second factor was the dog. Forty percent of participants said they would save their personal pet at the expense of a foreign tourist. But only 14 percent claimed they would sacrifice the tourist when the animal in the scenario was described generically as “a dog.” Finally, as other studies have found, women care more about animals than men do. In the run-away-bus scenario, female subjects were nearly twice as likely as males to say they would save a dog over a person.

Living With Moral Inconsistency

The bottom line is that, at least in some circumstances, we do value animals over people. But the differences in public outrage over the deaths of Jeanetta Riley and Arfee illustrate a more general point. It is that our attitudes to other species are fraught with inconsistency. We share the earth with roughly 40,000 other kinds of vertebrate animals, but most of us only get bent out of shape over the treatment of a handful of species. You know the ones: the big-eye baby seals, circus elephants, chimpanzees, killer whales at Sea World, etc. And while we deeply love our pets, there is little hue and cry over the 24 horses that die on race tracks in the United States each week, let alone the horrific treatment of the nine billion broiler chickens American consume annually.

Most people, it seems, live easily with what the environmental philosopher Chris Diehm calls “the paradox of the cats in our houses and cows on our plates.” Go figure.

Very interesting. As far as animals vs. humans goes, I think we need to make a big difference between types of animals. To me, there is a big difference between a dog and a lion. Even when the lion is endangered or whatever. While dogs can be aggressive and harm and kill people, living overseas as a teen I routinely ran into packs of feral, and possibly rabid, dogs, they typically are no where near as dangerous as something like a lion.

Also, dogs really do create a bond with their owner and vice versa. How many times have you heard of a lion saving it's owner in a house fire? Or for that matter a pet snake or rabbit or even cat?

So, I can understand treating a dog, or another domesticated animal, as a member of the family up to a point. Other animals like pigs especially but also horses and other farm animals can be quite beneficial to humans and create deep emotional connections that are mutually beneficial.

Animals like lions, not so much.

As far as the studies go, I don't find them that surprising. I am not that well versed in it, but from what I understand neoteny in humans and mammals in general means that we have a evolved drive to feel protective of creatures that have pre-maturation characteristics similar to our own. This is why things like spiders don't look cute and cause the "aaaww" reflex in people, especially women, while a puppy does. It is an evolved trait that means we feel protective of our young more than our matured and also of other animals that have similar youth characteristics.

I think that is also why you find a lot of example of different species of animals engaging in adoption of the young while they wouldn't normally get along if they were both mature adults.

(07-29-2015 07:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 05:32 PM)Troll King Wrote:  

One thing he said gave me a real WTF moment. He said something along the lines of, "You know you live in a morally degenerate society when it is illegal to destroy Bald Eagle eggs but we allow abortions by the hundreds of thousands per year."

But the difference is humans aren't an endangered species. We've gone from 1 billion to 7 billion in just over 100 years and still growing. If there were 7 billion bald eagles you wouldn't hear things like that. There are more chickens on the planet than humans. Nobody cares about destroying their eggs, because chickens aren't under threat of extinction. That's the difference. If there was just a handful of humans on the planet and falling, I'm sure abortion would be banned.

Yeah. That is fair. From what I remember he was referencing some story where a hiker found some eggs in a nest and broke some of them or stole them or something. Basically the guy was caught by wild life services and given some huge fine and maybe even some jail time. I don't remember the specifics.

It was just one of those times where the contrast between the two arguments really brought the point home.

But onto the chicken analogy. You remember this video:

Dead Serious: Woman Interrupts Everyone’s Lunch To Protest The Abuse Of Her "Little Girl" Named Snow...The Chicken!

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/vi...n08c882t56

Not that different huh? The fact that bitches like this care more about some fried chicken....err...her "little girl"...than a potential human life is pretty shocking and speaks volumes about our degenerate society.

And I say that as someone is has historically, and still to a fairly large degree in many cases, support abortion.

[TheWastelander]

I've noticed a trend with this story. The people freaking out the hardest over it online are single childless women.

I'm willing to bet women in second and third world countries who have to slaughter livestock to feed their kids wouldn't bat an eye at this and irrationally emote to the same extent.

[mormont]

Gotta admit, both the dentist who paid $50K to shoot a lion without taking a iota of risk, and the moralfags who organize the 2 minute hate against him are scum.

[Zebra_Cakes]

(07-29-2015 12:41 PM)JamesRodri Wrote:  

Shameful how the media hounds this guy and turns him into a public figure. (not condoning him killing anything)

I don't know about you, but I think hunting and killing an animal that you're not going to eat or make use out of other than as an ornament for over the fire place is a tad morbid. The fact that the animal suffered for over 40 hours before finally being put down is sad. But, that's just my opinion on the topic.

[speakeasy]

What I don't understand is why is this considered a sport? In my mind, sport has something of a competitive element to it. I could even see if you had two hunters who were in a contest to see how many kills they could get in 24hrs. I could even see why bull fighting is a sport(not that I'm saying I support it), since you are in close mortal combat with an enraged animal that can gore you. But shooting animals from a hundred yard away with a rifle? Where is the sport in that? It sounds more like a hobby to me. I think perhaps the reason is to give it an air of respectability.

[Apollo]

That which cannot defend itself, shall not be defended. - Nature

These people can express all the faux outrage they want, but I bet not one cent or one iota of their time is even spent on this issue after the perpetual outrage machine decides to focus on a new asinine target in about a week's time.

[PrimeTime32]

Man this guy is a fucking clown. Hunting animals in a enclosed space? How the fuck is this alpha? That shit is not hunting. I'll give 2:1 that this guy got the shit kick out of him in high school and he's making up for lost time. This is the type of guy that would start calling acting hard when he's around his group of friends pretending he hates you then kisses your ass when they are not around. This guy is the male version of a Facebook/Twitter attention whore and that shit backfired massively.

[Honorable Man]

Capitalism, bitches.

[Honorable Man]

(07-29-2015 09:35 PM)mastauser Wrote:  

You guys dont't see that this is related to how you are bringed up?

The most succesful and intelligent people in the world like animal conservation and nature