Sally Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Here's an article about "canned hunting" from National Geographic. So you don't have to go to any trouble, CY. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/140311-trophy-hunting-blood-lions-south-africa-conservation-captive-breeding/ Link to post Share on other sites
daveb Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 From the left wing National Geographic! Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
Raven Luni Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said: I have never heard of this, and I think that it is wrong. But this is very different than what I was talking about. This is animals being privately bred solely to be hunted. What I was talking about were "free" conservation animals (e.g., as free as animals on a conservation can be) that need to be put down (for the protection of the herd) being auctioned off, with the proceeds going to the conservation. I don't see what's wrong with that, if the conservation would otherwise just do it themselves anyway. You see - thats the big lie (most of the time anyway). Canned hunting is just one of the many examples of where this lie is used. Bear in mind we are talking about ENDANGERED species - not a bunch of overpopulated deer that can be culled. Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
Raven Luni Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 The trouble is your beloved president is on the side of the ones breaking the laws. Greed is the problem - the rarer the animal the higher the price. There are those that would sell their own mother to be the one to hunt the last of a species in existence. As I said you need look no further than the NRA's own statements to confirm that theyve been lobbying for this. Link to post Share on other sites
Chihiro Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 I am surprised this thread isn't praising Trump the way he deserves to be praised. I am going to give him a shout out he long deserves- "YAY TRUMP!!!! CONGRATS ON FIGURING OUT THE TACTIC OF DIVIDE AND RULE. YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS THREAD AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE MEDIA, ITS WORKING. PEOPLE HATE EACH OTHER MORE THAN THEY HATE (OR LOVE) YOU" For the record, Divide and Rule was famously used by the British to colonize many countries. So I can't give him full credit- its not his original idea. Thanks to this policy, the British saved a lot of time, effort and money on warfares and let the local population fight themselves out. And the local population obviously hated the British from the start, the same way most Republicans and Democrats dislike if not hate Trump and don't trust him. Yet they were ruled by the British for so long. Just like From what I see, right now it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. As long as you guys in US keep bickering you can never reach an amicable solution. And the only way you can find a solution is by having a trustworthy leader (regardless of whose party they belong to). So, shut up about your personal opinions, unite yourselves and you will see that Trump won't last long. Until then, I will continue to watch with amusement. Either Trump will fall or US will. Keep up the entertainment! Link to post Share on other sites
Raven Luni Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Oh we know all about that tactic. Its not him thats responsible for it though - hes too much of an idiot. The tories are doing the same thing over here by forcing more people into poverty. People are literally dying by the thousands because of it. Link to post Share on other sites
Raven Luni Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Back to the main theme of why trump is [not] amazing, Lets look at climate change denial and the general contempt for the academic community. More of the 'divide and rule' tactics that @Chihiro referred to? Certainly yes. This video strongly confirms that, but also that trump is not the 'mastermind' people take him for. The most credit I would ever give him is that he is an opportunist and an enabler. Its always the ones with financial interests - big oil, big pharma etc. The problem is that their hubris has gotten so far out of hand they can basically do what they want without even the need to cover up or deny most of it. Anyway here you go Link to post Share on other sites
Acing It Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 17 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said: If it helps, you can at least just summarize. My understanding is that conservations will have programs where they auction hunting licenses for specific animals that need to be put down anyway (either sick, or an aggressive post-breeding-age male that is killing breed-age males). They then use the money from that auction to help the conservation. That's a nicely cleaned up version of what actually goes on! Well done... and that's not to mention the methods used by those 'trophy hunters'. Not really the signs of a civilised person, using a crossbow or bow to kill an animal just to have it's head or skin as a 'trophy'. I can't justify any of that at all. There are more humane ways to 'kill animals that need to be killed'. In what Trump does I can see a lot of excuses to defend the indefensible. Not including the fall out of all of this, the signals it sends out to poachers and their 'customers'. Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 This thread in its entirety. Smh fam Link to post Share on other sites
Raven Luni Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 You could say that about 90% of all arguments. And the thing about most arguments is that one side is right and the other isnt (a purely objective fact). Thats why I prefer to err on the side with the most education and/or moral integrity Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Yato said: This thread in its entirety. Smh fam That go for both sides Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, ThaHoward said: That go for both sides Never said it was for just one Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 You're eitherway not likely to persuade anyone in a debate. Both are often predetirmined in their beliefs, and will only reinforce their own point of view. Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 40 minutes ago, Raven Luni said: You could say that about 90% of all arguments. And the thing about most arguments is that one side is right and the other isnt (a purely objective fact). Thats why I prefer to err on the side with the most education and/or moral integrity Morality itself is inherently flawed and not objective, and not reliant on logic. Science itself is flawed too. So accepting both sides has it flaws still makes them equal. So no, it's more like "Both sides have good points, but I choose this side because it aligns better with my logic, and I am influenced by my flawed moral compass." Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said: You still haven't explained why the situation that I am talking about (sick animals being auctioned) is wrong, Here's the explanation: Sick animals should be treated the same as sick humans: given medication and a safe home to make them more comfortable if they have an illness that can't be cured. They shouldn't be shot by someone who wants to kill an animal for fun. Link to post Share on other sites
Yatogami Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 TRUMP 2020! Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
NerotheReaper Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 A debate is only going to work with both sides present their points in a clear manner, provide evidence, let the other person speak without interruption, and have mutual respect for one another. Yelling, screaming, throwing insults, raising your voice, etc is not going to convince someone of your point. Once someone crosses this fine line, it is no longer a debate it is an argument and that is not productive at all. I think some people expect someone to change their stance on the spot, shifting of opinion on issues like politics or religion it takes time for that person there is not going to be a single moment where they do a 180 on the spot. I have seen people from both sides tear into one another, so it is not just one side that has issues. I always ask for someone in any situation to have an educated opinion on something. Politics or not. Link to post Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 59 minutes ago, Yato said: TRUMP 2020! Nah fam. Everyone knows Bernie 2020 is where it's at. Link to post Share on other sites
Raven Luni Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Yato said: Morality itself is inherently flawed and not objective, and not reliant on logic. Science itself is flawed too. So accepting both sides has it flaws still makes them equal. So no, it's more like "Both sides have good points, but I choose this side because it aligns better with my logic, and I am influenced by my flawed moral compass." If youre going to make a statement like that, at least provide examples of these 'good points', otherwise it seems like youre taking the centre ground for the sake of it. Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 3 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said: Give a wild, dangerous animal a safe home? Yes, in a wildlife retreat -- somewhere where they aren't going to be shot. There are wildlife retreats all over the world. b And no, I don't consider "conservations" (which are businesses because they charge for people to come shoot the animals) to be organizations that need to be supported. Wildlife retreats need to be. Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said: I'm not aware of any differences. The words seem like synonyms to me. Also, auctioning hunts aren't the primary purpose of these places...they wouldn't be a "business" just because of that. Of course you're aware of the difference. Retreats are sanctuaries; they don't allow animals to be shot for money. Link to post Share on other sites
Chihiro Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Yato said: TRUMP 2020! ROFL. I first read it as "I'll be black" I won't be surprised if he markets himself as black just to stay in power Link to post Share on other sites
Raven Luni Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 43 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said: Well, I do very much appreciate that Trump's administration is trying to end the human rights violation that is college kangaroo courts attempting to ruin men's lives. Are you referring to the fact that in today's society certain type of accusations carry a stigma that could loosely be described as a 'witch hunt' - words like 'rapist', 'paedophile', 'terrorist' etc. ? These things are a cultural artifact borne out of fear and domination - just as the original witch hunts were about exerting the authority of the church by creating various taboos, which resulted in people fearing eachother and eventually weaponising these fears by informing on rivals or people they simply didnt like (see: Salem witch hunts). Its true this happens today, but its also true that many of these accusations are very real. The 'witch hunt' excuse when used by high profile political figures is an example of plausible deniability, because it can be easily argued that political agendas are being carried out by rival parties. As an enlightened society we MUST be able to tell the difference. The tools we have to do this are investigation and the rule of law - not perfect but the best we have. Trying to subvert this process is wrong, and calling it a protection of human rights is frankly laughable. Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 [deleted] Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.