Zimbabwe 'seeks lion Cecil's killer' Walter Palmer from US

[Ebeneezer Goode]

You do realise that there's a difference between animals dying naturally because of where they're situated in the food chain and animals dying for the amusement of a hunter?

There isn't one, not really, not if animal welfare is your concern.

I thought my previous post clearly stated that this is about the life of the lion, I don't think I could have made that clearer. So the part I think is irrelevant in this discussion is that of impoverished Zimbabweans, which you brought up.

Well then I suggest you re-read the discussion, because we were talking specifically about lions that were due to be culled anyway.

 

[Red]

There isn't one, not really, not if animal welfare is your concern.r



Well then I suggest you re-read the discussion, because we were talking specifically about lions that were due to be culled anyway.

There isn't one, not really, not if animal welfare is your concern.



Well then I suggest you re-read the discussion, because we were talking specifically about lions that were due to be culled anyway.

I don't know what you're on about. I'm on about the lion Cecil whose name is clearly in the title thread. Animal welfare is my concern but I find it rather ridiculous of you to compare nature and personal amusement. You actually know this and you know full well that when I'm talking about animal welfare I mean in terms of humans killing animals for fun. These little games you like to play really are infantile EG, but I can see you derive pleasure from them

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I don't know what you're on about. I'm on about the lion Cecil whose name is clearly in the title thread. Animal welfare is my concern but I find it rather ridiculous of you to compare nature and personal amusement. You actually know this and you know full well that when I'm talking about animal welfare I mean in terms of humans killing animals for fun. These little games you like to play really are infantile EG, but I can see you derive pleasure from them

I'm not playing any games, and I would suggest that the fact you'd leap to that bizarre conclusion says more about you than it does me. This back and forth began when you responded to a post in which I said that if lions have to be killed for conservation then it's better that Zimbabweans rinse some money out of Westerners in the process. The point of contention never had anything to do with lions being killed solely for sport. It really isn't difficult to scroll back and see, if you have a dodgy memory.

 

[Red]

You made a ridiculous comparison between

I'm not playing any games, and I would suggest that the fact you'd leap to that bizarre conclusion says more about you than it does me. This back and forth began when you responded to a post in which I said that if lions have to be killed for conservation then it's better that Zimbabweans rinse some money out of Westerners in the process. The point of contention never had anything to do with lions being killed solely for sport. It really isn't difficult to scroll back and see, if you have a dodgy memory.

Heh of course you're playing games when you make a ridiculous comparison between animals that kill other animals and hunters who killed animals for fun. It's quite amusing how you totally ignore the part of my post that you know full well I was referring to when I said you were playing games. Nice one on trying to manoeuvre the point of contention away from
what the original topic is about though. How do impoverished Zimbabweans benefit from organised hunting?

If you're not playing a juvenile game then explain how there's no difference between animals that kill other animals to survive and hunters who killed animals for fun. Yes in both instances animals are killed. If that is what you're saying the difference is then there's nothing more to be said. It might help if you try and broaden your understanding of the word welfare

 

[HertsWolf]

How does legal game hunting benefit conservation? Do the organisers of them donate to conservation? I really don't know.

Legal hunting actually does contribute to conservation, if unwittingly. Hunting tends to be labour-intensive both on the hunt side and the hospitality side. Paying jobs tends to reduce poaching. I say 'tends' because it's not black and white, but it's a strong correlation. Typically, hunting companies do fund conservation projects. It's not a happy coexistence between the hunting companies and the conservation world, but it's mutually beneficial.
It may surprise people that most poachers - at grass-roots level anyway - hate poaching. They are well aware of the damage it is doing to their futures. But if the choice is between killing a rhino to feed your family or letting your child and family starve to death, the choice is easy. I'd do it; you would probably do it.

 

[TomPNE94]

#RIP #YNWA

 

[Red]

Legal hunting actually does contribute to conservation, if unwittingly. Hunting tends to be labour-intensive both on the hunt side and the hospitality side. Paying jobs tends to reduce poaching. I say 'tends' because it's not black and white, but it's a strong correlation. Typically, hunting companies do fund conservation projects. It's not a happy coexistence between the hunting companies and the conservation world, but it's mutually beneficial.
It may surprise people that most poachers - at grass-roots level anyway - hate poaching. They are well aware of the damage it is doing to their futures. But if the choice is between killing a rhino to feed your family or letting your child and family starve to death, the choice is easy. I'd do it; you would probably do it.

Yeah, I wouldn't begrudge anyone killing an animal if it meant they and their family didn't starve.

 

[Craig]

Plus rhino meat is damn tasty tbf.

 

[Red]

Plus rhino meat is damn tasty tbf.

Rhino's living in Barnsley?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

You made a ridiculous comparison between

Heh of course you're playing games when you make a ridiculous comparison between animals that kill other animals and hunters who killed animals for fun. It's quite amusing how you totally ignore the part of my post that you know full well I was referring to when I said you were playing games. Nice one on trying to manoeuvre the point of contention away from
what the original topic is about though. How do impoverished Zimbabweans benefit from organised hunting?

If you're not playing a juvenile game then explain how there's no difference between animals that kill other animals to survive and hunters who killed animals for fun. Yes in both instances animals are killed. If that is what you're saying the difference is then there's nothing more to be said. It might help if you try and broaden your understanding of the word welfare

It's like there's a game of Chinese whispers going on in your brain. What I post goes in, gets re-imagined and/or extrapolated on, and then gets fed back to me in the form of some kind of bizarre straw man argument. There's no wonder you get so confused and irate. Just to clarify, at no point did I suggest that animals killing for food is the same as hunters killing for fun. You should refer back to this post in future if need be, because clearly your mind can't be trusted to remember it accurately.

 

[Red]

It's like there's a game of Chinese whispers going on in your brain. What I post goes in, gets re-imagined and/or extrapolated on, and then gets fed back to me in the form of some kind of bizarre straw man argument. There's no wonder you get so confused and irate. Just to clarify, at no point did I suggest that animals killing for food is the same as hunters killing for fun. You should refer back to this post in future if need be, because clearly your mind can't be trusted to remember it accurately.

Heh, the default 'it's all in your head you're confused' position again. I said there's a difference between animals killing other animals to survive and hunters killing them for fun. You said there isn't in post 62. Perhaps I'm hallucinating. I asked you to explain how there's no difference and again instead of answering the question directly you just avoid it and play the 'it's all in your head game'

You were so consumed with your insistence that I'm imagining things you neglected to answer my other question about how impoverished Zimbabweans benefited from organised hunting. It doesn't matter though, it's quite obvious you have no intention of answering and I'm not that fussed about reading anymore of your weasel attempts at addressing questions.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from that I'm irate. I'm not personally insulting you or using profane language. I do get a little bit exasperated with your refusal to answer questions and projection though

 

[Stevencc]

I reckon Red and EG should be given sniper rifles and forced to hunt each other down!

 

[Red]

I reckon Red and EG should be given sniper rifles and forced to hunt each other down!

He'd probably tell me to give myself up because it's in my imagination that I've got a sniper rifle

 

[Gladders]

To be fair to EG, the topic had changed to legal hunts by page 2, then all of a sudden Red decides to go back to one lion killed illegally in the middle of his argument.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Heh, the default 'it's all in your head you're confused' position again. I said there's a difference between animals killing other animals to survive and hunters killing them for fun. You said there isn't in post 62. Perhaps I'm hallucinating.

No, if you're going back and still confused, then it's probably just poor reading comprehension. Remember this is in the context of a cull, as established earlier in the first post that started this discussion, as I've reminded you once already, and as is even reiterated in the post that you're referencing now.

You were so consumed with your insistence that I'm imagining things you neglected to answer my other question about how impoverished Zimbabweans benefited from organised hunting. It doesn't matter though, it's quite obvious you have no intention of answering and I'm not that fussed about reading anymore of your weasel attempts at addressing questions.

The question has already been answered for you by HertsWolf, not that it should have needed asking in the first place it's so obvious. Not to mention the fact that I'd already answered it once earlier in the thread...

 

[Red]

.

To be fair to EG, the topic had changed to legal hunts by page 2, then all of a sudden Red decides to go back to one lion killed illegally in the middle of his argument.

I asked him to explain how there's no difference between animals killing for survival and hunters killing for fun. Despite having several opportunities to do that he instead prefers repeated obfuscation

 

[HertsWolf]

Jesus. Some people would argue their way into a paper bag.

 

[Red]

No, if you're going back and still confused, then it's probably just poor reading comprehension. Remember this is in the context of a cull, as established earlier in the first post that started this discussion, as I've reminded you once already, and as is even reiterated in the post that you're referencing now.



The question has already been answered for you by HertsWolf, not that it should have needed asking in the first place it's so obvious. Not to mention the fact that I'd already answered it once earlier in the thread...

I wasn't asking you the question in the terms of a cull, you've just interpreted as that. Seeing as I asked the question I, not you, know the context in which it was asked. Obviously we've got confusion over the context, but even when it became apparent to you there was confusion you opt for the it's all in my head routine

 

[HertsWolf]

eg = exempli gratia
EG = exempli garrulitas

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Jesus. Some people would argue their way into a paper bag.

No they wouldn't!

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

.
I asked him to explain how there's no difference between animals killing for survival and hunters killing for fun. Despite having several opportunities to do that he instead prefers repeated obfuscation

That's probably because I wasn't suggesting they're the same thing, something I have repeatedly explained to you, and something you've only managed to claim is the case by conveniently ignoring all context from my prior comments.

It's akin to me quoting this:

[...] I wouldn't begrudge anyone killing an animal [...]

And then asking you over and over again why you're such a heartless bastard while ignoring your explanation. Utterly pointless. I don't know what you're trying to achieve.