A picture -- like the video of the cop shooting Walter Scott in the back -- is undeniable evidence of an outrageous and unjustifiable act. It is in no way okay just because we can't see it.
NFL players beating on and killing their girlfriends and wives was always outrageous and many campaigned against it. The outrage didn't go viral and compel action until the undeniable, visual evidence came forward.
I didn't need to see the pic to know that this a disgusting activity, which I have taken action to oppose in the past. You're making me rethink my position on whether B in Alb needed to post that pic so others would finally take a stand against against such pointless cruelty.
My point is that that we're only focusing on this because there is a picture, and I think the comparison holds up. In the past, a DV arrest wouldnt merit a year long suspension. Yes, everyone condemns domestic violence, but DV was a 0-4 games affair if there was no video. Indeed, Rice got two games, wasnt cut, wasnt ostracized etc. Then the video comes out, and everyone reacts badly to seeing the DV occur. The video is what "caused" the revulsion and launched the new dialogue and condemnation.
Same thing here with the giraffe. I assure you that if there was no picture that got disseminated by Gervais, this story wouldnt be "a thing". Most people wouldnt give a shit about an article that says some lady shot a giraffe. It is seeing her smiling next to the dead giraffe that is causing the revulsion and notoriety. I know this because there arent 50 threads a day about the 100s or 1000s of trophy killings that happen every day.
I wrote: "It is seeing her smiling next to the dead giraffe that is causing the revulsion and notoriety." Obviously some people would be disgusted just reading about it, and other people dont have any problem even seeing the picture. My comment was about more people having a bad reaction because of the picture.
Hunting for sport - this doesn't seem to qualify. When animals are penned down, are you really hunting for sport? If the animal was used for food, presuming they're short on food there, then it's not hunting for sport, it's hunting for food.
The pictures and the way the animal was hunted are what has people up in arms here, and that's because it follows a general trend of people traveling to impoverished places and playing Jungle Jim with their indigenous animals. Today it's a giraffe, tomorrow an elephant. And it's always the same story, someone with too much disposable money on their hands looking to score a thrill kill, and act as if somehow they have either saved someone's life or bested some dangerous animal, when it's typically a point-and-shoot type kill orchestrated by a guide.
To take the utilitarian view, at the end of the day the locals benefit either way, they have a source of income and a source of food.
I don't think you can really compare Fishing trophy photos Â
about being wrong, he resorts to name calling, it's so obvious throughout your posting history.
Try the WWF or EEC or other group not solely concerned with giraffes. They're not even listed as near threatened.
It seems like you read the headline, were outraged and decided to share this and the outrage.
Problem is no fact supports your outrage other than this woman is a mother of 5 and took a offensive picture.
No facts other than sources, articles, studies, etc.
OK. Night night.
You cited the IUCN:
Quote:
Conservation status
Giraffes as a whole are not endangered, and are listed as "least concern" by the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species.
Night night meaning you dumbed yourself to sleep? Or your outrage just peaked and you had to take a nap?
you're embarrassing yourself.
All we need is a "this thread has a whole lot of stupid" or "this is an IQ test" comment and it's a complete thread.
You didn't even bother reading the rest of the content on their website. Oh that's right - I cut and pasted it above and you said I didn't cite a source. It clearly states numbers are significantly declining and three species of giraffe are already endangered. Plus moespree linked three articles.
wouldn't give a shit category please. I dont need a picture to feel the way I do, thank you very much
I get that a lot of people really dislike hunting. If I gave it more thought I'd probably come down that way too. But it's a big country, and there is a LOT of support for hunting.
[/quote]About three-quarters of Americans support hunting. One nationwide survey found that 77% of adult Americans ap
prove of legal hunting (45% strongly approve), while 16% disapprove (Figure 1) (RM 2006c). Another nationwide study found that 75% of adult Americans approve of legal hunting (48% strongly approve), while 17% disapprove (RM 2003b). In these surveys, the term, “legal hunting,” was used to ensure that respondents would not confuse the term, “hunting,” to include poaching and other types of illegal hunting, as focus group research has found that many people include these forms of illegal hunting in their conception of the term, “hunting” (RM 1993a). In a nationwide survey that asked a question specifically about the legality of hunting, 81% of adult Americans agree that hunting should
continue to be legal (RM 1995).[/quote]
much of a sport to take out an animal that has been in captivity, is sick and isn't even offering a challenge.
that's probably the worst thing about this.
It would be like going to your backyard to find a 18 year old, blind German shephard with shallow breathing and the first thing you think of is "Let me get my bow out".
it's just walking along all innocent picking at some food hanging the fuck out. And along comes some lunatic from Utah with her fucking bow and arrow and shoots it in the neck for no good reason. I hope she gets in a terrible, fiery, handicapping, jaws-of-life-type car accident and survives.
Same here. There was a thread on this bitch last year. I hope she rots.
I never understood it. Couldn't wrap my heard around the idea that you love animals...so you travel the world to kill them, cut their heads off, and hang them on your wall. Cuz you love them.
I grew up in a hunting community, I've hunted (as a kid, not in 20+ years), and I don't have a moral problem with hunting for food or for population control. But you lose me when you start talking trophy hunting, thrill killing, crap like that.
Side note: my house is next to a YMCA parking lot. I always see a truck tattooed with hunting stickers. The centerpiece is a massive buck skull with "Bone Collector" over it in stylized script. Every time I see it I fight the urge to leave a note on his windshield: "hiding In a blind or tree stand and waiting for a deer to smell your salt lick doesnt make you a warrior. In fact, until you chase down something dangerous and kill it with a bladed weapon stop calling yourself a hunter. Ass."
You live in Alaska and track a bull moose for 5 days and take him down for food for the winter is what a "hunt" is all about. You actually have to work for it. What did blonde do that quantifies tis as hunting?
but I was raised in a different environment than others so I sort of feel it is not totally the right thing to judge.
Agree. And I find the real irony is that the most vocal people are advocating for the torture and slow death of a fellow human being, a mother, for practically euthanizing a near-death wild animal at the request and benefit of the locals.
You live in Alaska and track a bull moose for 5 days and take him down for food for the winter is what a "hunt" is all about. You actually have to work for it. What did blonde do that quantifies tis as hunting?
What you describe is actual hunting. A lot of what's called hunting, especially some these high priced safari/"hunting" trips are simply ego indulgences that allow rich people the chance to kill rare animals, often in a penned in or otherwise human influenced environment. That's not hunting, it's the rich persons version of shooting fish in a barrel .
Do people really hunt solely for population control? Like, they dont really WANT to hunt, but they have to be a hero because the land is overburdened?
Im not very knowledgeable about this stuff, but it seems like pop control is more likely an excuse to hunt. As for food, I have spoken to a number of people who do that where my in-laws live (northern MN). They all like hunting so its not just a food issue for them. In fact I'd guess that they could buy beef cheaper than their outlay on gear, licenses, butchery etc to get deer/moose meat.
I dont have a position on hunting regardless of purpose. As a non-vegetarian I dont think I can really get on too high of a moral horse about killing animals. But I really struggle to believe that there are many people who are hunting who do not actively enjoy it.
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
I thought I'd be infuriated and would find the hunter detestable, but when I read her actual comments, they actually kind of... make sense?
The lying-down-and-smiling bit is a bit much, but c'mon, hunters are just weird that way.
I agree with this. Looking at the picture first, I sort of felt bad for giraffe but after reading the story it seemed to make sense. That she is lying on the ground smiling beside it makes her look callous and barbarous but, feeding a starving village is something to smile about.
I'm not a hunter and would find it difficult to shoot an animal personally. I wouldn't be smiling in a picture like that, but hunters have a different mindset. They're used to it, and all the fun stuff that comes afterwards - like dressing the animal, which would make most of us puke.
Not my thing personally but, if the story is true I don't really take issue with it.
RE: I find it funny that a tribe that has been existing in Africa Â
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
I was thinking this too, haha. That at least, didn't really compute.
village saved from starvation by a compassionate do-gooer. To think we might of lost a village of people who couldn't figure out how to fend for themselves
village saved from starvation by a compassionate do-gooer. To think we might of lost a village of people who couldn't figure out how to fend for themselves
I dunno how accurate the story is or isn't, but is it far-fetched? Africa is pretty synonymous with starvation isn't it?
RE: RE: I find it funny that a tribe that has been existing in Africa Â
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
I was thinking this too, haha. That at least, didn't really compute.
Wouldn't be surprised if the tribe was going to slaughter it and she/one of her travel companions said "well shit, let us shoot it!". And if that were the case you could even argue that it's more humane on account that it will die a cleaner, quicker death from a gun than it would from a few dozen spears and arrows.
But that stupid picture changes everything and would make the noblest of motivations questionable. If she posted a pic of the tribe eating the giraffe and told her story do you think anyone would be up in arms? Maybe the most fringe f the anti-hunting movement, but not like this. Instead she takes a pic posing next to the neck, for scale, with a big stupid shit eating grin on her face. She brought this on herself, even if some of the condemnation is silly, and it could've ben avoided by simply handling it better.
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
but....why would anyone give a shit about only the picture? Â
The giraffe is dead whether she takes a silly picture of herself or not. What difference does it make? I just find that line of reasoning to be really bizarre.
sntacruzom - I agree. I don't hunt, and I find hunters to be odd from my point of view. To leap from odd or weird to "I hope she gets eaten by lions!!!" is just plain ridiculous.....but then I find a lot about the constant internet outrage mindset to be ridiculous.
there's something about selling it as doing something just "to be a part of something so good" and then taking a selfie lying down with it that just kinda rubs me the wrong way.
I have no problem with this. Old Bull that couldn't breed Â
and was cast out of the herd. The animal did not go to waste and got a quick death.
I am not sure how naive some people are but when animals die in the wild, it is generally not in a pleasant manor. Disease, starvation or being eaten alive are the most likely options.
If asked, like she says she was, I would have done the same thing. Who gives a shit about the picture, the giraffe sure doesn't.
RE: RE: I find it funny that a tribe that has been existing in Africa Â
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
Did the shirtless black woman also pay an exorbitant amount of money to indulge her ego and travel to Africa for the sole purpose of killing it's indigenous species and pass it off as a humanitarian mission? If so, yeah, she'd be dumb too.
RE: If the Giraffe was elderly and near death, he deserved a humane Â
departure. Killing by arrow or random shots is not humane.
If his meat needed to be preserved to feed other captive animals (held in such circumstances due to no other humane alternative), fine, but there are still more humane ways to kill than letting some schmucky yahoo play pretend Safari.
This giraffe spent his life in captivity entertaining humans. Show him a little fucking respect.
I am assuming that they charge a premium fee for the permit required to hunt it. So if the wildlife managers are faced with the choice of giving a old dying animal a shot to kill it or instead gaining a large fee that could be used to help better protect manage and ensure the survival of the local herd which is the better choice?
Also most avid hunters are skilled enough to where they most often will be able to place a kill shot which kills quickly or even instantly.
Lastly does anyone know if the animal were injected with poison in order to kill it that way instead of with a gun does that contaminate the meat in any way since the meat is intended to feed the local villagers? I don't think meat that may contain a carcinogenic should be feed to children simply to avoid an animal being shot instead of poisoned.
It is easy for us to sit back in this country and draw quick conclusions to something but in reality we likely don't know and can't fully appreciate all the facts and what effects they may have on the local animal herd, the local economy and the local villagers.
RE: RE: RE: I find it funny that a tribe that has been existing in Africa Â
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
Did the shirtless black woman also pay an exorbitant amount of money to indulge her ego and travel to Africa for the sole purpose of killing it's indigenous species and pass it off as a humanitarian mission? If so, yeah, she'd be dumb too.
I'm not arguing that this chick is dumb.
I just don't get the outrage. Especially in this particular kill. As long as it wasn't completely unecessary and it wasn't unecessarily humane I don't see why it matter who it is that killed the animal.
And yup, she's feeding her ego, agreed. I don't think that warrants wishing it was her laying there as the giraffe licked her face. Talk about weird kinks...
A picture -- like the video of the cop shooting Walter Scott in the back -- is undeniable evidence of an outrageous and unjustifiable act. It is in no way okay just because we can't see it.
NFL players beating on and killing their girlfriends and wives was always outrageous and many campaigned against it. The outrage didn't go viral and compel action until the undeniable, visual evidence came forward.
I didn't need to see the pic to know that this a disgusting activity, which I have taken action to oppose in the past. You're making me rethink my position on whether B in Alb needed to post that pic so others would finally take a stand against against such pointless cruelty.
My point is that that we're only focusing on this because there is a picture, and I think the comparison holds up. In the past, a DV arrest wouldnt merit a year long suspension. Yes, everyone condemns domestic violence, but DV was a 0-4 games affair if there was no video. Indeed, Rice got two games, wasnt cut, wasnt ostracized etc. Then the video comes out, and everyone reacts badly to seeing the DV occur. The video is what "caused" the revulsion and launched the new dialogue and condemnation.
Same thing here with the giraffe. I assure you that if there was no picture that got disseminated by Gervais, this story wouldnt be "a thing". Most people wouldnt give a shit about an article that says some lady shot a giraffe. It is seeing her smiling next to the dead giraffe that is causing the revulsion and notoriety. I know this because there arent 50 threads a day about the 100s or 1000s of trophy killings that happen every day.
Quote:
about being wrong, he resorts to name calling, it's so obvious throughout your posting history.
Try the WWF or EEC or other group not solely concerned with giraffes. They're not even listed as near threatened.
It seems like you read the headline, were outraged and decided to share this and the outrage.
Problem is no fact supports your outrage other than this woman is a mother of 5 and took a offensive picture.
No facts other than sources, articles, studies, etc.
OK. Night night.
You cited the IUCN:
Giraffes as a whole are not endangered, and are listed as "least concern" by the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species.
Night night meaning you dumbed yourself to sleep? Or your outrage just peaked and you had to take a nap?
you're embarrassing yourself.
All we need is a "this thread has a whole lot of stupid" or "this is an IQ test" comment and it's a complete thread.
The pictures and the way the animal was hunted are what has people up in arms here, and that's because it follows a general trend of people traveling to impoverished places and playing Jungle Jim with their indigenous animals. Today it's a giraffe, tomorrow an elephant. And it's always the same story, someone with too much disposable money on their hands looking to score a thrill kill, and act as if somehow they have either saved someone's life or bested some dangerous animal, when it's typically a point-and-shoot type kill orchestrated by a guide.
To take the utilitarian view, at the end of the day the locals benefit either way, they have a source of income and a source of food.
Nobody cares about fish. They're looked at as mindless creatures nobody has a problem filleting.
But harpoon a bottlenose dolphin and take a shot smiling as it hangs by it's tail, and it's clearly wrong.
Quote:
In comment 12235865 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
about being wrong, he resorts to name calling, it's so obvious throughout your posting history.
Try the WWF or EEC or other group not solely concerned with giraffes. They're not even listed as near threatened.
It seems like you read the headline, were outraged and decided to share this and the outrage.
Problem is no fact supports your outrage other than this woman is a mother of 5 and took a offensive picture.
No facts other than sources, articles, studies, etc.
OK. Night night.
You cited the IUCN:
Quote:
Conservation status
Giraffes as a whole are not endangered, and are listed as "least concern" by the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species.
Night night meaning you dumbed yourself to sleep? Or your outrage just peaked and you had to take a nap?
you're embarrassing yourself.
All we need is a "this thread has a whole lot of stupid" or "this is an IQ test" comment and it's a complete thread.
You didn't even bother reading the rest of the content on their website. Oh that's right - I cut and pasted it above and you said I didn't cite a source. It clearly states numbers are significantly declining and three species of giraffe are already endangered. Plus moespree linked three articles.
Done with you.
I get that a lot of people really dislike hunting. If I gave it more thought I'd probably come down that way too. But it's a big country, and there is a LOT of support for hunting.
[/quote]About three-quarters of Americans support hunting. One nationwide survey found that 77% of adult Americans ap
prove of legal hunting (45% strongly approve), while 16% disapprove (Figure 1) (RM 2006c). Another nationwide study found that 75% of adult Americans approve of legal hunting (48% strongly approve), while 17% disapprove (RM 2003b). In these surveys, the term, “legal hunting,” was used to ensure that respondents would not confuse the term, “hunting,” to include poaching and other types of illegal hunting, as focus group research has found that many people include these forms of illegal hunting in their conception of the term, “hunting” (RM 1993a). In a nationwide survey that asked a question specifically about the legality of hunting, 81% of adult Americans agree that hunting should
continue to be legal (RM 1995).[/quote]
Link - ( New Window )
that's probably the worst thing about this.
It would be like going to your backyard to find a 18 year old, blind German shephard with shallow breathing and the first thing you think of is "Let me get my bow out".
What difference does it make if the locals killed it themselves, or allowed someone else to do it?
I don't respect the desire for a canned hunt, but I think people are looking for a reason to be upset here (presuming the article is correct)
Same here. There was a thread on this bitch last year. I hope she rots.
I know what she is doing is technically legal, but its still sick.
I grew up in a hunting community, I've hunted (as a kid, not in 20+ years), and I don't have a moral problem with hunting for food or for population control. But you lose me when you start talking trophy hunting, thrill killing, crap like that.
Side note: my house is next to a YMCA parking lot. I always see a truck tattooed with hunting stickers. The centerpiece is a massive buck skull with "Bone Collector" over it in stylized script. Every time I see it I fight the urge to leave a note on his windshield: "hiding In a blind or tree stand and waiting for a deer to smell your salt lick doesnt make you a warrior. In fact, until you chase down something dangerous and kill it with a bladed weapon stop calling yourself a hunter. Ass."
Agree. And I find the real irony is that the most vocal people are advocating for the torture and slow death of a fellow human being, a mother, for practically euthanizing a near-death wild animal at the request and benefit of the locals.
What you describe is actual hunting. A lot of what's called hunting, especially some these high priced safari/"hunting" trips are simply ego indulgences that allow rich people the chance to kill rare animals, often in a penned in or otherwise human influenced environment. That's not hunting, it's the rich persons version of shooting fish in a barrel .
Im not very knowledgeable about this stuff, but it seems like pop control is more likely an excuse to hunt. As for food, I have spoken to a number of people who do that where my in-laws live (northern MN). They all like hunting so its not just a food issue for them. In fact I'd guess that they could buy beef cheaper than their outlay on gear, licenses, butchery etc to get deer/moose meat.
I dont have a position on hunting regardless of purpose. As a non-vegetarian I dont think I can really get on too high of a moral horse about killing animals. But I really struggle to believe that there are many people who are hunting who do not actively enjoy it.
The lying-down-and-smiling bit is a bit much, but c'mon, hunters are just weird that way.
The lying-down-and-smiling bit is a bit much, but c'mon, hunters are just weird that way.
I agree with this. Looking at the picture first, I sort of felt bad for giraffe but after reading the story it seemed to make sense. That she is lying on the ground smiling beside it makes her look callous and barbarous but, feeding a starving village is something to smile about.
I'm not a hunter and would find it difficult to shoot an animal personally. I wouldn't be smiling in a picture like that, but hunters have a different mindset. They're used to it, and all the fun stuff that comes afterwards - like dressing the animal, which would make most of us puke.
Not my thing personally but, if the story is true I don't really take issue with it.
I was thinking this too, haha. That at least, didn't really compute.
I dunno how accurate the story is or isn't, but is it far-fetched? Africa is pretty synonymous with starvation isn't it?
Quote:
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
I was thinking this too, haha. That at least, didn't really compute.
Wouldn't be surprised if the tribe was going to slaughter it and she/one of her travel companions said "well shit, let us shoot it!". And if that were the case you could even argue that it's more humane on account that it will die a cleaner, quicker death from a gun than it would from a few dozen spears and arrows.
But that stupid picture changes everything and would make the noblest of motivations questionable. If she posted a pic of the tribe eating the giraffe and told her story do you think anyone would be up in arms? Maybe the most fringe f the anti-hunting movement, but not like this. Instead she takes a pic posing next to the neck, for scale, with a big stupid shit eating grin on her face. She brought this on herself, even if some of the condemnation is silly, and it could've ben avoided by simply handling it better.
Just sayin'
Agreed
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
sntacruzom - I agree. I don't hunt, and I find hunters to be odd from my point of view. To leap from odd or weird to "I hope she gets eaten by lions!!!" is just plain ridiculous.....but then I find a lot about the constant internet outrage mindset to be ridiculous.
Absolutely.
I am not sure how naive some people are but when animals die in the wild, it is generally not in a pleasant manor. Disease, starvation or being eaten alive are the most likely options.
If asked, like she says she was, I would have done the same thing. Who gives a shit about the picture, the giraffe sure doesn't.
Quote:
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
It depends on her rack.
—Pythagoras
Quote:
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
Did the shirtless black woman also pay an exorbitant amount of money to indulge her ego and travel to Africa for the sole purpose of killing it's indigenous species and pass it off as a humanitarian mission? If so, yeah, she'd be dumb too.
If his meat needed to be preserved to feed other captive animals (held in such circumstances due to no other humane alternative), fine, but there are still more humane ways to kill than letting some schmucky yahoo play pretend Safari.
This giraffe spent his life in captivity entertaining humans. Show him a little fucking respect.
I am assuming that they charge a premium fee for the permit required to hunt it. So if the wildlife managers are faced with the choice of giving a old dying animal a shot to kill it or instead gaining a large fee that could be used to help better protect manage and ensure the survival of the local herd which is the better choice?
Also most avid hunters are skilled enough to where they most often will be able to place a kill shot which kills quickly or even instantly.
Lastly does anyone know if the animal were injected with poison in order to kill it that way instead of with a gun does that contaminate the meat in any way since the meat is intended to feed the local villagers? I don't think meat that may contain a carcinogenic should be feed to children simply to avoid an animal being shot instead of poisoned.
It is easy for us to sit back in this country and draw quick conclusions to something but in reality we likely don't know and can't fully appreciate all the facts and what effects they may have on the local animal herd, the local economy and the local villagers.
Quote:
In comment 12235968 j_rud said:
Quote:
for centuries needs the help of the Great White Hunter to get their food. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but I'm guessing they probably could've handled it on their own.
Why does that even matter?
No outrage if it was a shirtless black woman lying next to it and smiling? Makes sense.
Did the shirtless black woman also pay an exorbitant amount of money to indulge her ego and travel to Africa for the sole purpose of killing it's indigenous species and pass it off as a humanitarian mission? If so, yeah, she'd be dumb too.
I'm not arguing that this chick is dumb.
I just don't get the outrage. Especially in this particular kill. As long as it wasn't completely unecessary and it wasn't unecessarily humane I don't see why it matter who it is that killed the animal.
And yup, she's feeding her ego, agreed. I don't think that warrants wishing it was her laying there as the giraffe licked her face. Talk about weird kinks...
says the man who proposed to his future wife while she was tied up naked bent over a chair