Support NeoGAF

[Basketball]

Fuck that guy

What did the elephant do to him in the first place?

A great creature just to be some fucking trophy
Trophy hunters can all go to hell.

If the Elephant attacked someone

 

[aliengmr]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Humans are sold into slavery all the time for high prices. Should we make it legal because people do it anyways?

This assumes that humanity values all life equally and they don't. It's a false equivalence. Humans already value their own lives. The incentive to have murder and slavery illegal is to not be murdered and not be a slave. No such incentive exists for animals inherently.

That's not to say that that is the right way of thinking, but it is reality. Few humans would ever place the survival of an animal over their own when it came down to it.

Another difference is these animals don't have their own solution to the problem. They can't fix it themselves, aside from crushing a hunter here and there. Their very existence depends on humans that, as sad as it is, need an incentive to keep Elephants alive. What incentive does the average farmer have to keep Elephants or Lions alive? He's busy trying to make ends meet and would rather not have to deal with animals that would more than likely kill him and disrupt his life. That is selfish, but it's also the point.

Fact is, making trophy hunting illegal will do nothing to help the species and probably drive it underground. Much like drugs and alcohol. In the end the animals are still being slaughtered and fewer people with loads of money care. If nobody wants to use the land for hunting, then it becomes used for something else, there by destroying the habitat further.

Hate and shame the hunter all you want. Laugh at his demise if it suits you. But don't be so naive to think that humans value all life equally and would stop the slaughter of these animals out of a moral obligation to do so.

 

[GermanZepp]

Anyone who kills for the thrill/fun deserves to die.

 

[Barberetti]

RIP elephant

 

[Shaanyboi]

I can't be bothered to have a shred of concern for hunters like this.

A shame the elephant had to pay for some fucker's ego. Wish it could've taken out the rest of those clients.

 

[Nafai1123]

"Because people do it anyways" is not the argument. Is there evidence to suggest that legalizing slavery decreases its occurrence?

No, there is evidence that making slavery illegal decreased it's occurrence. There is evidence that changing peoples perception of slaves changed peoples perception of what it is to be human, and to have rights as a human being.

The argument is not whether legalizing the hunting of elephants decreases poaching. The argument is whether legalizing the hunting of a conscious, empathetic organism is justified at all. You cannot justify human slavery, or torture, or murder, so how can you justify doing the same to elephants? Because people will do it anyways? That's not a good reason. What we should be doing is trying to change peoples minds about what it means to be conscious, and that beings who are conscious should be granted the same rights as humans, and we should be punishing people who violate the rights of those animals the same as if they violated the rights of a human being.

This assumes that humanity values all life equally and they don't. It's a false equivalence. Humans already value their own lives. The incentive to have murder and slavery illegal is to not be murdered and not be a slave. No such incentive exists for animals inherently.

That's not to say that that is the right way of thinking, but it is reality. Few humans would ever place the survival of an animal over their own when it came down to it.

Another difference is these animals don't have their own solution to the problem. They can't fix it themselves, aside from crushing a hunter here and there. Their very existence depends on humans that, as sad as it is, need an incentive to keep Elephants alive. What incentive does the average farmer have to keep Elephants or Lions alive? He's busy trying to make ends meet and would rather not have to deal with animals that would more than likely kill him and disrupt his life. That is selfish, but it's also the point.

Fact is, making trophy hunting illegal will do nothing to help the species and probably drive it underground. Much like drugs and alcohol. In the end the animals are still being slaughtered and fewer people with loads of money care. If nobody wants to use the land for hunting, then it becomes used for something else, there by destroying the habitat further.

Hate and shame the hunter all you want. Laugh at his demise if it suits you. But don't be so naive to think that humans value all life equally and would stop the slaughter of these animals out of a moral obligation to do so.

I understand humans don't value all lives equally. That's abundantly obvious. I don't really have a problem with trophy hunting in general. I understand why it exists. What I have a problem with is people justifying the murder of an innocent, empathetic organism as if it can ever be justified. It can't, and never will be. Go hunt a lion or zebra. Elephants should be off limits.

 

[muteki]

R.I.P elephant.

Enjoy your stupid prize, hunter dude.

 

[Rentahamster]

No, there is evidence that making slavery illegal decreased it's occurrence. There is evidence that changing peoples perception of slaves changed peoples perception of what it is to be human, and to have rights as a human being.

And there is evidence that tying the local population's economic well being to the sustainability of the wild animal population through activities like hunting or safari tourism increases the survivability of the species. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

You cannot justify human slavery, or torture, or murder, so how can you justify doing the same to elephants? Because people will do it anyways? That's not a good reason. What we should be doing is trying to change peoples minds about what it means to be conscious, and that beings who are conscious should be granted the same rights as humans, and we should be punishing people who violate the rights of those animals the same as if they violated the rights of a human being.

Saving the species from extinction is all the justification I need. It's nice to feel good from a moral position, but that doesn't mean much if all the elephants die out before I somehow convince humans to value morals over money.

 

[crazy monkey]

The guy died doing what he loved. Elephant got instant revenge. Win win.

 

[Soldiussnaku]

.

 

[SolarMystic]

Maybe one can care about both?

I wonder how many in this thread speaking out are vegetarians. Should we make a poll?

 

[Nepenthe]

What I have a problem with is people justifying the murder of an innocent, empathetic organism as if it can ever be justified. It can't, and never will be. Go hunt a lion or zebra. Elephants should be off limits.

I would wager a guess that social animals like lions and zebras also express some level of empathy and emotion to other individuals and potentially human caretakers. It might not be to the extent of elephants, but that's all regardless of the point that I don't necessarily agree with just throwing animals under the bus and saying it's fine to "murder" them because they don't think/feel enough to meet an arbitrary threshold, especially threatened/endangered ones like, well, lions.

 

[Unbounded]

You cannot justify human slavery, or torture, or murder, so how can you justify doing the same to elephants?

Because they would quite literally stop existing otherwise.

Why is that a difficult concept.

 

[Mister Wolf]

I wonder how many in this thread speaking out are vegetarians. Should we make a poll?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Seth Enosh]

What does that have to do with anything?

A quote like "You cannot justify human slavery, or torture, or murder, so how can you justify doing the same to elephants?" could be seen to imply that in the poster's eyes, elephant lives have the same value as human lives.

If animal lives are of equal worth to human ones, then eating them for food is wrong too. After all, you can't kill a human and say it's okay because you ate them afterward.

Elephants may be intelligent and empathetic but are they really more so than pigs, cows, and other common meat animals, to such a degree that their lives are worth so much more? There's a lot of stuff coming out now about various animals indicating they're intelligent, have emotions, etc. If a wild pig killed a legal hunter and we had a thread about it in NeoGAF, would we have the same posts saying the hunter deserved to die?

Anyway, some of the posters in here might actually be vegetarians or vegans, and some
might have an ethical framework that allows
them to differentiate killing an elephant from killing a pig to such a degree that they can justify their posts. Maybe that's true of all the posters, but it's definitely an interesting question to ask.

 

[zewone]

How close do you need to be to shoot an elephant?

 

[Ragnorok64]

Forget the article, did anyone, including the OP, even read what's quoted in the first post?

In any case, am I to assume that since he was a known hunter and this was a game reserve, that this was legal hunting and not poaching?

 

[Mister Wolf]

A quote like "You cannot justify human slavery, or torture, or murder, so how can you justify doing the same to elephants?" could be seen to imply that in the poster's eyes, elephant lives have the same value as human lives.

If animal lives are of equal worth to human ones, then eating them for food is wrong too. After all, you can't kill a human and say it's okay because you ate them afterward.

Elephants may be intelligent and empathetic but are they really more so than pigs, cows, and other common meat animals, to such a degree that their lives are worth so much more? There's a lot of stuff coming out now about various animals indicating they're intelligent, have emotions, etc. If a wild pig killed a legal hunter and we had a thread about it in NeoGAF, would we have the same posts saying the hunter deserved to die?

Anyway, some of the posters in here might actually be vegetarians or vegans, and some
might have an ethical framework that allows
them to differentiate killing an elephant from killing a pig to such a degree that they can justify their posts. Maybe that's true of all the posters, but it's definitely an interesting question to ask.

Yeah there are so many philosophies and outlooks on this. My stance is if you are a hunter and you get killed in the process be it for food or sport then I don't feel sorry for you especially if you were killed by the thing you intended to kill. I don't feel sorry for bungie jumpers and other life risking thrill seekers neither.

 

[Bishop89]

Poor elephant 🐘

 

[Nepenthe]

Elephants may be intelligent and empathetic but are they really more so than pigs, cows, and other common meat animals, to such a degree that their lives are worth so much more?

While I have some reservations about using "intelligence" as the only standard of worth concerning animal lives, there really is no contest between elephants and any farm animal you could think of when it comes to emotional depth and empathy.

It's like comparing a border collie to a pekinese. Like. No. xD

 

[Spladam]

Rest in peace elephant. Sorry it had to end this way for you.

 

[MIMIC]

Reading a National Geographic article. Says "33,000 [elephants] are killed each year by poachers for their ivory."

Damn. Didn't know that many were killed.