http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11767119/Cecil-the-lions-killer-revealed-as-American-dentist.html
What a scumbag. I hope someone shoots him.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F03389%2Fwalt3_3389709b.jpg&hash=307bfaf114f2d94ed3d57bef2309cb24dc087f20)
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
Hunters have their place. Lots of animals near populated areas have had their natural predators exterminated so hunting within regulations can be useful and I guess fun for the hunters.
But I don't think shooting lions really falls under that category. That is pretty bad.
At least in this case, Martinus, you're mostly correct. This guy is a complete scumbag. I'm not sure that I wish for his death, but I will not be unhappy if his practice is a shambles in the coming months and his career ruined. Killing rare animals like this is sickening.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
I'll send you some whitetail deer to hang out in your living room.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
You appear to be unhinged.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
BY the way, some quick googling shows the African Lion to be listed as a "vulnerable" species. I'm not sure whether that means hunting them is prohibited or not (or whether it should be or not).
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
BY the way, some quick googling shows the African Lion to be listed as a "vulnerable" species. I'm not sure whether that means hunting them is prohibited or not (or whether it should be or not).
Apparently he is facing poaching charges.
Can't believe this is a thread where we all agree with Marti :hmm:
But yeah, trophy hunting is stupid. I hope this dentist loses all his clients.
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
BY the way, some quick googling shows the African Lion to be listed as a "vulnerable" species. I'm not sure whether that means hunting them is prohibited or not (or whether it should be or not).
Apparently he is facing poaching charges.
No, the guide is facing poaching charges.
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:38:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
BY the way, some quick googling shows the African Lion to be listed as a "vulnerable" species. I'm not sure whether that means hunting them is prohibited or not (or whether it should be or not).
Apparently he is facing poaching charges.
No, the guide is facing poaching charges.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-accused-african-lion-death-convicted-08-bear-32737430
Quote
An avid Minnesota hunter accused of illegally killing a protected lion in Zimbabwe said Tuesday that he thought everything about his trip was legal and wasn't aware of the animal's status "until the end of the hunt."
Walter Palmer, who has a felony record in the U.S. related to shooting a black bear in Wisconsin, released his statement through a public relations firm after being identified by officials as the American involved in the hunt. Authorities in Zimbabwe say Palmer is being sought on poaching charges, but Palmer said he hasn't heard from U.S. or Zimbabwean authorities.
"I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt," said Palmer, a dentist who lives in the Minneapolis suburb of Eden Prairie.
You'd think the Zimbabwe authorities would have their shit together on this :rolleyes:
The guy needs better counsel.
"I enrolled in an extreme dentistry overseas program to fulfill continuing professional education requirements. I was performing a procedure on this very nice lion when things went horribly awry. No one told me the nitrous dosage had been switched to metric units . . ."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
The guy needs better counsel.
"I enrolled in an extreme dentistry overseas program to fulfill continuing professional education requirements. I was performing a procedure on this very nice lion when things went horribly awry. No one told me the nitrous dosage had been switched to metric units . . ."
:lol:
Quote from: Josephus on July 28, 2015, 02:36:54 PM
Can't believe this is a thread where we all agree with Marti :hmm:
But yeah, trophy hunting is stupid. I hope this dentist loses all his clients.
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
Broadly speaking, anyone who hunts animals for sport (as opposed to having it as a part of cultural lifestyle to get food, like say an African tribe's hunter). More specifically, anyone who thinks killing animals is fun, takes pictures of himself with dead animals, or involves their kids in this sickness.
@Valmy, I am ambiguous about the "hunters have their place" argument. Sure, *some* of them can be said to perform some useful role (although I am not sure why it cannot be performed by forest wardens and the like). Still, as with butchers, executioners and prison wardens, you have to wonder what's wrong with a person who not only performs such role willingly but also apparently enjoys it.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
Broadly speaking, anyone who hunts animals for sport (as opposed to having it as a part of cultural lifestyle to get food, like say an African tribe's hunter). More specifically, anyone who thinks killing animals is fun, takes pictures of himself with dead animals, or involves their kids in this sickness.
@Valmy, I am ambiguous about the "hunters have their place" argument. Sure, *some* of them can be said to perform some useful role (although I am not sure why it cannot be performed by forest wardens and the like). Still, as with butchers, executioners and prison wardens, you have to wonder what's wrong with a person who not only performs such role willingly but also apparently enjoys it.
So what does it mean to "hav[e] ot as a part of [a] cultural lifestyle to get food"? I know lots of northerners who go out to bag a moose to fill their freezer for the winter. They aren't necessarily native (though many are), but that's part of their fall ritual - to go hunting. Or people who hunt deer in areas where the population is out of control.
there's perhaps a distinction for pure trophy hunters, who don't eat the meat, but even then I'm not so sure I'm quick to condemn them.
Obviously the situation here is wrong - the lured an animal out of a natural preserve, and killed an animal that was tagged and collared. But I don't think you can tar all hunters, no matter what kind, with the same brush.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
Broadly speaking, anyone who hunts animals for sport (as opposed to having it as a part of cultural lifestyle to get food, like say an African tribe's hunter). More specifically, anyone who thinks killing animals is fun, takes pictures of himself with dead animals, or involves their kids in this sickness.
@Valmy, I am ambiguous about the "hunters have their place" argument. Sure, *some* of them can be said to perform some useful role (although I am not sure why it cannot be performed by forest wardens and the like). Still, as with butchers, executioners and prison wardens, you have to wonder what's wrong with a person who not only performs such role willingly but also apparently enjoys it.
:lol:
So, it turns out that Marti lacks the virtue of empathy and instead hopes that those different from him are shot. Who'd have predicted that? :mellow:
Bowhunting large lions in Africa seems like it would be dangerous.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 28, 2015, 04:25:37 PM
Bowhunting large lions in Africa seems like it would be dangerous.
Yep, the lion was killed.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 28, 2015, 04:25:37 PM
Bowhunting large lions in Africa seems like it would be dangerous.
Yes you should go after the cubs.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 04:08:03 PM
Broadly speaking, anyone who hunts animals for sport (as opposed to having it as a part of cultural lifestyle to get food, like say an African tribe's hunter). More specifically, anyone who thinks killing animals is fun, takes pictures of himself with dead animals, or involves their kids in this sickness.
@Valmy, I am ambiguous about the "hunters have their place" argument. Sure, *some* of them can be said to perform some useful role (although I am not sure why it cannot be performed by forest wardens and the like). Still, as with butchers, executioners and prison wardens, you have to wonder what's wrong with a person who not only performs such role willingly but also apparently enjoys it.
:lol: Classic Marti.
If I take a deer this fall, you'll be the first to know.
I agree with Marti.
Yes, hunting for food is fine.
Trophy hunting, that is, hunting big game for the pleasure of mounting a head in your patients' waiting room, and posing with it, is not. This is purely for the pleasure of killing.
I don't think you Europeans understand how many fucking deer there are in the US. Deer kill 200 people every year, and they never eat their kills. They are blood thirsty monsters.
His yelp page, whatever that is, isn't doing so good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/28/a-vengeful-internet-trashed-the-yelp-page-of-the-minnesota-dentist-who-shot-cecil-the-lion/
what's the difference between killing for sport and killing for profit? i applaud the guy. he wanted to hunt something worthwhile, with a freaking bow, and he accomplished that goal. i applaud climbers of mt. everest, too. while the former involves killing an animal, mankind kills animals every day. it's what we do. until that changes, killing a lion with a bow may as well be similar to climbing a mountain. illegalities aside, of course.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 05:31:35 PM
I don't think you Europeans understand how many fucking deer there are in the US. Deer kill 200 people every year, and they never eat their kills. They are blood thirsty monsters.
Then there the damn ticks.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 05:31:35 PM
Deer kill 200 people every year, and they never eat their kills.
How many of those people die in car wrecks cause they hit the deer? Doesn't seem like the deer will be in very good shape either after that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 28, 2015, 06:18:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 05:31:35 PM
Deer kill 200 people every year, and they never eat their kills.
How many of those people die in car wrecks cause they hit the deer? Doesn't seem like the deer will be in very good shape either after that.
All of them. They are like suicide bombers.
I kinda agree with Marti.
Though I am not against hunting at all. People who go hunt deer and take it home and eat it (or even make stuff out of the antlers/hide) are fine by me. The part about hunting "culture" that really turns me off are the "victory poses" with dead animal. I think it's a rather morbid action with no added value or worth at all.
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful". I thought that was pretty sickening.
I kind of agree with Marti too. :Embarrass:
Hunting (at least outside of something like deer where the population needs to be managed) seems pretty contemptible.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful".
I have the weirdest boner right now
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful".
I have the weirdest boner right now
Didn't you use to want to be a vet? :hmm:
Quote from: Camerus on July 28, 2015, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful".
I have the weirdest boner right now
Didn't you use to want to be a vet? :hmm:
hah good memory.
Well, you could argue that for rednecks hunting deer and the like, it is somewhat cultural and could be excused. Then it's a bit like farmers killing animals they are raising on a regular basis - part of the way of life.
But it gets much weirder when you have, say, a middle class suburban office worker or professional, who gets together with his buddies a couple of times a year and travels somewhere to kill animals, like he was on some goddamn kayaking trip. Then it doesn't really matter whether he is killing a rare lion or ubiquitous deer - the whole attitude is sickening to me.
For the record, my negative attitude about hunting is not as much related to the fact that it kills animals or is animal cruelty (of course when it is some sick way of killing animals, sure, it should be banned - but usually shooting animals is not more cruel than slaughtering them in a slaughter house) as it is to the kind of psychological mindset it involves (again, as I said, if it is a part of the way of life, I guess it is different). To put it differently, even if you eat a deer you shoot, but shoot deer as a part of some "fun event", and otherwise you lead a normal life, buy your food from the grocer and work in a white collar job, you are a sicko and should be watched carefully, not for the sake of the poor deer, but for the sake of the society at large.
If someone gets an itch to kill, I think everyone is better off if they let off some steam on a deer or a stray cat.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 06:20:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 28, 2015, 06:18:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 05:31:35 PM
Deer kill 200 people every year, and they never eat their kills.
How many of those people die in car wrecks cause they hit the deer? Doesn't seem like the deer will be in very good shape either after that.
All of them. They are like suicide bombers.
What's the department of Homeland Security doing about this? I
Quote from: Josephus on July 28, 2015, 05:25:58 PM
I agree with Marti.
Yes, hunting for food is fine.
Trophy hunting, that is, hunting big game for the pleasure of mounting a head in your patients' waiting room, and posing with it, is not. This is purely for the pleasure of killing.
It depends on the number of animals in the spot it is killed.
BB said the lion had the status of vulnerable, so this might not be a good idea to hunt lions, and it seems in this particular place, at least, it was forbidden, but if there were too many lions in some place, and that would pose a danger to elephant or rhinos, shouldn't we allow them to be hunted for sport?
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2015, 12:05:58 AM
If someone gets an itch to kill, I think everyone is better off if they let off some steam on a deer or a stray cat.
This argument cuts both ways - you could also say that if they start killing animals for fun, they will eventually move to an "upgraded prey". It's similar in that way to the argument whether to ban virtual child pornography.
Quote from: viper37 on July 29, 2015, 12:37:06 AM
Quote from: Josephus on July 28, 2015, 05:25:58 PM
I agree with Marti.
Yes, hunting for food is fine.
Trophy hunting, that is, hunting big game for the pleasure of mounting a head in your patients' waiting room, and posing with it, is not. This is purely for the pleasure of killing.
It depends on the number of animals in the spot it is killed.
BB said the lion had the status of vulnerable, so this might not be a good idea to hunt lions, and it seems in this particular place, at least, it was forbidden, but if there were too many lions in some place, and that would pose a danger to elephant or rhinos, shouldn't we allow them to be hunted for sport?
The argument is not about the animal, but about the human motivation. So no, if there are too many animals of some species, they should be culled by professionals, not randomly shot by some sickos with a murder fetish.
There are 30 million deer in the United States, not only are they a danger on the road, they harm forests by overgrazing the undergrowth.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2015, 01:14:23 AM
There are 30 million deer in the United States, not only are they a danger on the road, they harm forests by overgrazing the undergrowth.
Is this in response to something I said? Because I fail to see connection, but it is right below my post.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2015, 02:11:34 PM
At least in this case, Martinus, you're mostly correct. This guy is a complete scumbag. I'm not sure that I wish for his death, but I will not be unhappy if his practice is a shambles in the coming months and his career ruined. Killing rare animals like this is sickening.
This. It will most likely happen too.
Not everything is about you marti :rolleyes:
Hunting animals (e.g. deers, boars, etc.) for population control in the absence of extincted predators is necessary.
Hunting animals for trophies and fun is despicable and I hope this asshole will be ruined by the public backlash.
Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2015, 03:18:10 AM
Hunting animals (e.g. deers, boars, etc.) for population control in the absence of extincted predators is necessary.
Hunting animals for trophies and fun is despicable and I hope this asshole will be ruined by the public backlash.
I agree. I guess my point is that we should find a way to prevent people from the second group from masquerading as people from the first group - it is the intent that counts, not whether the animal is endangered or not.
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2015, 03:41:46 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2015, 03:18:10 AM
Hunting animals (e.g. deers, boars, etc.) for population control in the absence of extincted predators is necessary.
Hunting animals for trophies and fun is despicable and I hope this asshole will be ruined by the public backlash.
I agree. I guess my point is that we should find a way to prevent people from the second group from masquerading as people from the first group - it is the intent that counts, not whether the animal is endangered or not.
Mind control? A special thought police that ensures people doing legitimate activities think about them correctly?
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
Broadly speaking, anyone who hunts animals for sport (as opposed to having it as a part of cultural lifestyle to get food, like say an African tribe's hunter). More specifically, anyone who thinks killing animals is fun, takes pictures of himself with dead animals, or involves their kids in this sickness.
@Valmy, I am ambiguous about the "hunters have their place" argument. Sure, *some* of them can be said to perform some useful role (although I am not sure why it cannot be performed by forest wardens and the like). Still, as with butchers, executioners and prison wardens, you have to wonder what's wrong with a person who not only performs such role willingly but also apparently enjoys it.
Re: Population control of Animals. You have to pay Forest Wardens for their time. Why do that when you can issue hunting permits & have people pay for the privilege of providing population control for you?
The issue is how Asshole Dentist here has no respect for the rules of law when his hobbies are concerned.
Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2015, 03:18:10 AM
Hunting animals (e.g. deers, boars, etc.) for population control in the absence of extincted predators is necessary.
Hunting animals for trophies and fun is despicable and I hope this asshole will be ruined by the public backlash.
What about where the two coincide? What if hunting deer serves the function of population control, but you enjoy it and maybe do something decorative with the antlers?
Marty's thought police will have you re-educated sir.
It will be fun this fall if I get a deer. Pics will be posted.
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2015, 01:10:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2015, 12:05:58 AM
If someone gets an itch to kill, I think everyone is better off if they let off some steam on a deer or a stray cat.
This argument cuts both ways - you could also say that if they start killing animals for fun, they will eventually move to an "upgraded prey". It's similar in that way to the argument whether to ban virtual child pornography.
Sigh.
Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2015, 08:53:10 AM
Marty's thought police will have you re-educated sir.
Modern media is this unholy alliance between clickbait journalism and bored office drone Gutmensch like Marti. :hmm:
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful".
I have the weirdest boner right now
How is your boner weird? :lmfao:
Quote from: Legbiter on July 29, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2015, 08:53:10 AM
Marty's thought police will have you re-educated sir.
Modern media is this unholy alliance between clickbait journalism and bored office drone Gutmensch like Marti. :hmm:
Are you saying I have big gut? :mad:
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 29, 2015, 08:45:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM
What exactly qualifies as a "hobby hunter" to you Martinus?
Broadly speaking, anyone who hunts animals for sport (as opposed to having it as a part of cultural lifestyle to get food, like say an African tribe's hunter). More specifically, anyone who thinks killing animals is fun, takes pictures of himself with dead animals, or involves their kids in this sickness.
@Valmy, I am ambiguous about the "hunters have their place" argument. Sure, *some* of them can be said to perform some useful role (although I am not sure why it cannot be performed by forest wardens and the like). Still, as with butchers, executioners and prison wardens, you have to wonder what's wrong with a person who not only performs such role willingly but also apparently enjoys it.
Re: Population control of Animals. You have to pay Forest Wardens for their time. Why do that when you can issue hunting permits & have people pay for the privilege of providing population control for you?
The issue is how Asshole Dentist here has no respect for the rules of law when his hobbies are concerned.
Well, you also have to pay, say, executioners (in countries that allow death penalty) rather than allowing volunteer psychos to execute people because they get their kicks out of it.
I like the way you always have a knack to find new & exciting revenue streams.
For someone who lives in an urban environment sport hunting is difficult to understand. For someone who lives in a remote area of Northern BC and who depends on income from guiding sport hunters during the hunting season it is a way of life.
Quote from: Josephus on July 29, 2015, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful".
I have the weirdest boner right now
How is your boner weird? :lmfao:
It's not easy to describe, you have to see it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2015, 10:44:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on July 29, 2015, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful".
I have the weirdest boner right now
How is your boner weird? :lmfao:
It's not easy to describe, you have to see it.
check your PM
:P I guess people don't watch community.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Hobby hunters in this day and age are the group of people for whom I have almost absolute contempt and scorn. A bunch of perverted sickos, who compensate for their deficiencies and sociopathic tendencies by killing animals for fun and sport.
I don't see how hunting animals can be a fun.
Now hunting terrorists...
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2015, 08:54:21 AM
It will be fun this fall if I get a deer. Pics will be posted.
I really like venison. Unfortunately all the regs make it hard to get to fresh.
Quote from: HVC on July 29, 2015, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2015, 10:44:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on July 29, 2015, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2015, 07:52:11 PM
One time I channel-surfed across one of those hunting shows on TV, and the lady who had just blasted a deer was holding its head in her lap, stroking it, while cooing "you're so beautiful".
I have the weirdest boner right now
How is your boner weird? :lmfao:
It's not easy to describe, you have to see it.
check your PM
:shutup:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2015, 12:18:21 PM
I really like venison. Unfortunately all the regs make it hard to get to fresh.
I like it but sometimes it just gets too gamey. The deer on my uncle's property get some corn in their diet, which obviously helps.
Venison too gamey? :o
You're obviously insane. Bear is gamey. Reindeer and elk taste gamey. Venison's lean red meat that is best served as steaks. :Canuck:
And to be honest, I think hunting is perfectly legitimate, as long as it's non-endangered species.
In Norway, we've basically hunted the mountain grouse to near extinction.
Quote from: Norgy on July 29, 2015, 03:46:01 PM
Venison too gamey? :o
You're obviously insane. Bear is gamey. Reindeer and elk taste gamey. Venison's lean red meat that is best served as steaks. :Canuck:
And to be honest, I think hunting is perfectly legitimate, as long as it's non-endangered species.
In Norway, we've basically hunted the mountain grouse to near extinction.
The only elk I've ever had has been farmed, and it was not gamey at all. :mmm:
Elk steak.... :uffda: :thumbsup: :w00t: :mmm:
Lean red, succulent meat.
I really liked the Reindeer stead I had.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2015, 03:58:12 PM
I really liked the Reindeer stead I had.
Did you use a saddle, or ride bareback?
The moose I've had in Norway's quite good, not very gamey to me.
Anybody excited about the Oculus rift?
It looks they are finally getting VR right, with low latency and high resolution screens.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2015, 04:07:06 PM
Anybody excited about the Oculus rift?
It looks they are finally getting VR right, with low latency and high resolution screens.
Yeah, I bet Big Game Hunter 2016 is going to be amazing.
Quote from: Norgy on July 29, 2015, 03:56:31 PM
Elk steak.... :uffda: :thumbsup: :w00t: :mmm:
Lean red, succulent meat.
The only elk I've had was roasted (sort of like a pot roast), and IIRC slow-roasting helps take away some of the gamey flavor.
Quote from: Norgy on July 29, 2015, 03:56:31 PM
Elk steak.... :uffda: :thumbsup: :w00t: :mmm:
Lean red, succulent meat.
It was a big-ole bone-in elk ribeye. Fantastic.
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2015, 04:18:05 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 29, 2015, 03:56:31 PM
Elk steak.... :uffda: :thumbsup: :w00t: :mmm:
Lean red, succulent meat.
The only elk I've had was roasted (sort of like a pot roast), and IIRC slow-roasting helps take away some of the gamey flavor.
The lesser cuts are good for roasts or stews, and yes, you are correct. The fillets, however, are better than most beef fillets. I envy Beeb his elk ribeye, as it is the best steak I have ever tasted.
Reindeer is usually too lean to have a good ribeye. But the fillets are among the finest cuts of meat you can have. Lean, tender and very full of taste. A half and half with wild trout and reindeer tenderloin or sirloin is my idea of a perfect meal.
(Yes, I did not get fat from just drinking)
Around here I can usually get elk and deer steaks each season, and those are good eating. Moose is good as well. All that grass from the bottom of ponds makes them tasty.
Like Obelix, I'd also like me some boar. :ph34r:
Quote from: Norgy on July 29, 2015, 05:45:02 PM
Like Obelix, I'd also like me some boar. :ph34r:
MMM boar. My butcher had some very nice wild boar bacon on offer a couple of weeks ago.
Place near my parents used to live served the best wild boar sausage. I think it's the only wild boar sausage I had had, but for standard American type pork sausage it was the best I've tried.
You get some pretty good wild boar sausage with pumpkin seeds in some supermarkets here.
I'm hungry now, thanks a lot guys. <_<
One thing about sea bass is it has nothing to do with bass. The name is a marketing gimmick to boost demand for what used to be kind of a trash fish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2015, 08:57:43 AM
One thing about sea bass is it has nothing to do with bass. The name is a marketing gimmick to boost demand for what used to be kind of a trash fish.
You think we should drop it?
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
People don't kill people, bows and arrows do.
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
Nope, the entire fate of humanity depends on a tiger some people liked but most were unfamiliar with until he got shot.
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2015, 10:07:55 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
People don't kill people, bows and arrows do.
Usually it's the arrow.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2015, 10:09:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2015, 10:07:55 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
People don't kill people, bows and arrows do.
Usually it's the arrow.
Good point. We need an arrow registration program.
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
I agree with you that there are many issues of significant importance that don't get the attention they deserve. A beloved lion named Cecil gets killed and the planet weeps. Children die of hunger or exploitation anonymously and without comment. The internet crowd become outraged over issues which can be expressed simply and within the character constraints of twitter. Complex significant problems are difficult to discuss in this new age of instantaneous worldwide communication. I think those sorts of discussions were better back when people still read newspapers rather than their twitter/facebook feeds.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
I agree with you that there are many issues of significant importance that don't get the attention they deserve. A beloved lion named Cecil gets killed and the planet weeps. Children die of hunger or exploitation anonymously and without comment. The internet crowd become outraged over issues which can be expressed simply and within the character constraints of twitter. Complex significant problems are difficult to discuss in this new age of instantaneous worldwide communication. I think those sorts of discussions were better back when people still read newspapers rather than their twitter/facebook feeds.
Yeap.
Twitter is horrible. Facebook is a 100 times better and I am no Facebook fan.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
I agree with you that there are many issues of significant importance that don't get the attention they deserve. A beloved lion named Cecil gets killed and the planet weeps. Children die of hunger or exploitation anonymously and without comment. The internet crowd become outraged over issues which can be expressed simply and within the character constraints of twitter. Complex significant problems are difficult to discuss in this new age of instantaneous worldwide communication. I think those sorts of discussions were better back when people still read newspapers rather than their twitter/facebook feeds.
Except the problem you listed is one as old as time. I don't think people reading newspapers brought any advantage over current digital media in say solving those problems for Africa.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2015, 12:22:15 PM
Except the problem you listed is one as old as time. I don't think people reading newspapers brought any advantage over current digital media in say solving those problems for Africa.
True. Kony 2012 fixed Africa.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2015, 12:22:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 10:05:38 AM
I wish the internet mob would concentrate on more important stuff, like people killing people for example.
I agree with you that there are many issues of significant importance that don't get the attention they deserve. A beloved lion named Cecil gets killed and the planet weeps. Children die of hunger or exploitation anonymously and without comment. The internet crowd become outraged over issues which can be expressed simply and within the character constraints of twitter. Complex significant problems are difficult to discuss in this new age of instantaneous worldwide communication. I think those sorts of discussions were better back when people still read newspapers rather than their twitter/facebook feeds.
Except the problem you listed is one as old as time. I don't think people reading newspapers brought any advantage over current digital media in say solving those problems for Africa.
You may be too young to remember this but there was a time when newspapers were the focal point of social and political discourse. Many reforms both political and social were influenced or even caused by that sort of discourse which would last more than the life span of the newest internet outrage.
Yeah and you sound like an old man crying about the youth of today and their technology. ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2015, 12:37:15 PM
Yeah and you sound like an old man crying about the youth of today and their technology. ;)
True but Twitter does suck in a way that other social media doesn't. It seems to be built to do what CC is complaining about.
Valmy hates twitter, get him! #lynchmob
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2015, 12:37:15 PM
Yeah and you sound like an old man crying about the youth of today and their technology. ;)
No, just the growing inability of society to comprehend things that are not easily contained within a limited number of characters combined with the shrinking budgets of Newspapers to do meaningful reporting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2015, 12:37:15 PM
Yeah and you sound like an old man crying about the youth of today and their technology. ;)
No, just the growing inability of society to comprehend things that are not easily contained within a limited number of characters combined with the shrinking budgets of Newspapers to do meaningful reporting.
Yes, the latest generation is also more dreadful than those that have come before.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2015, 12:37:15 PM
Yeah and you sound like an old man crying about the youth of today and their technology. ;)
No, just the growing inability of society to comprehend things that are not easily contained within a limited number of characters combined with the shrinking budgets of Newspapers to do meaningful reporting.
Yes, the latest generation is also more dreadful than those that have come before.
Why do you make this a generational thing. Both young and old use twitter, facebook etc. And both young and old have stopped reading newspapers. You aren't that special. ;)
Tabloids existed way before Twitter and always had much higher distribution than quality newspapers. I find the idea that intellectual discourse has been harmed by new social media questionable.
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 01:32:00 PM
Tabloids existed way before Twitter and always had much higher distribution than quality newspapers. I find the idea that intellectual discourse has been harmed by new social media questionable.
What would you say replaced the reporting and editorials of newspapers?
Nothing, they are still around...?
You can find a multitude of newspapers, TV shows, blogs, books etc. on just about every political issue.
Click-bait (its equivalents anyway) crap driving outrage is not new. Being able to instantly get a virtual mob to terrorize the object of said outrage is new...well maybe a throwback to the villages of old :P
What we have here is the evolution of that stuff. I never liked tabloids and that culture so why would I like its evolved and mutated descendants?
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 01:32:00 PM
Tabloids existed way before Twitter and always had much higher distribution than quality newspapers. I find the idea that intellectual discourse has been harmed by new social media questionable.
Maybe in Germany, but in the US there were only a handful of tabloids, and their combined circulation was absolutely dwarfed by the circulation of quality newspapers before, say, the turn of the 21st century.
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 02:21:19 PM
Nothing, they are still around...?
You can find a multitude of newspapers, TV shows, blogs, books etc. on just about every political issue.
Here is an article that touches on what I am talking about. Yes, we still have newspapers but they are a shadow of what they once were. Yes we have tv news shows but they lack meaningful content or analysis. Blogs are part of the problem. Anyone can write whatever they want about anything without the guidance of editors or editorial boards. Good for freedom of expression but bad for meaningful, well researched and well edited content.
But that isn't the worst part. Even if one were to have the very best of blogs which meets the highest journalistic standards - how does one compete to attract a readership. The experience of the newspapers tells us, not very well.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/14/national-newspapers-sales-decade
And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.
If the printing press had been limited to 140 characters things would have been very different.
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.
Actually no. Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print. Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 03:11:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.
Actually no. Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print. Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.
I understand that in your ideal world every written word would be checked and approved before publication by venerable Jorge from The Name of the Rose.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fjorge_zpst4f1wft5.jpg&hash=c8898f4606a7dc7c9783ad78accdeba926e01544)
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 03:11:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.
Actually no. Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print. Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.
I understand that in your ideal world every written word would be checked and approved before publication by venerable Jorge from The Name of the Rose.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fjorge_zpst4f1wft5.jpg&hash=c8898f4606a7dc7c9783ad78accdeba926e01544)
I am not sure why you would think that, but ok.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 03:11:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.
Actually no. Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print. Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.
I understand that in your ideal world every written word would be checked and approved before publication by venerable Jorge from The Name of the Rose.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fjorge_zpst4f1wft5.jpg&hash=c8898f4606a7dc7c9783ad78accdeba926e01544)
I am not sure why you would think that, but ok.
Lucky guess.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 03:11:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2015, 02:54:30 PM
And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.
Actually no. Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print. Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.
Didn't stop a whole crapload of bullshit pamphlets being published in the 17th and 18th century. :P
(https://mercuriuspoliticus.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mowing-devil-title-page.gif)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.pbs.org%2Fposter_images%2Fassets%2F135362.JPG.resize.710x399.jpg&hash=85726df230b6c94889ba381ba498cec244a37fb7)
(https://mercuriuspoliticus.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/physicke.jpg)
Not any better or worse than what I see on my sisters' Facebook newsfeed, really. :P
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2015, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 01:32:00 PM
Tabloids existed way before Twitter and always had much higher distribution than quality newspapers. I find the idea that intellectual discourse has been harmed by new social media questionable.
Maybe in Germany, but in the US there were only a handful of tabloids, and their combined circulation was absolutely dwarfed by the circulation of quality newspapers before, say, the turn of the 21st century.
Okay, wrong generalisation by me then. Where did Americans get their gossip and trivial "news" back in the day?
Does that last devil have tits?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 02:50:00 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/14/national-newspapers-sales-decade
Hmm, the article is very vague when it comes to explanations. Not sure how it supports your point which I understood as social media having a bad influence on public discourse.
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
Okay, wrong generalisation by me then. Where did Americans get their gossip and trivial "news" back in the day?
Television.
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2015, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 01:32:00 PM
Tabloids existed way before Twitter and always had much higher distribution than quality newspapers. I find the idea that intellectual discourse has been harmed by new social media questionable.
Maybe in Germany, but in the US there were only a handful of tabloids, and their combined circulation was absolutely dwarfed by the circulation of quality newspapers before, say, the turn of the 21st century.
Okay, wrong generalisation by me then. Where did Americans get their gossip and trivial "news" back in the day?
Klan meetings.
Don't be ridiculous. Klan meetings were all business.
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2015, 03:41:18 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Klan meetings were all business.
:console:
I think it's fair to say that whereas the superficiality, stupidity, and vindictiveness of twitter and its ilk are nothing new, the range of participants has increased greatly.
I think of social media as all the letters to the editor that were just ridiculed and laughed at during lunch being published. All the time.
Quote from: Norgy on July 30, 2015, 04:23:05 PM
I think of social media as all the letters to the editor that were just ridiculed and laughed at during lunch being published. All the time.
I quite like that analogy, but it requires the reader to know what "letters to the editor" were. :(
Quote from: Zanza on July 30, 2015, 03:38:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2015, 02:50:00 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/14/national-newspapers-sales-decade
Hmm, the article is very vague when it comes to explanations. Not sure how it supports your point which I understood as social media having a bad influence on public discourse.
The point I am making is that newspaper readership, and as a result newspapers, have declined remarkably since the late 80s.
Quote from: derspiess on July 30, 2015, 03:32:40 PM
Does that last devil have tits?
All devils have tits.
Cecil?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Cecil_Rhodes_ww.jpg/450px-Cecil_Rhodes_ww.jpg)
Can someone hunt down Martinus please.
Quote from: Siege on July 31, 2015, 01:39:35 PM
Can someone hunt down Martinus please.
Less sex talk, please.
People now having a voice may have some annoying effects, but it sure beats the alternative.
Change is bad. Film at 11.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2015, 02:32:25 AM
Change is bad. Film at 11.
I think you might mean "full video stream available now"
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2015, 02:44:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2015, 02:32:25 AM
Change is bad. Film at 11.
I think you might mean "full video stream available now"
I think you mean, "But I never expected what happens next!"
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2015, 02:44:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2015, 02:32:25 AM
Change is bad. Film at 11.
I think you might mean "full video stream available now"
Speaking of which, this part I hate - there is less and less written online content and more some films showing people talking. :P
I've seen more outrage over one damn lion getting shot by accident than over the 200,000 dead in Syria killed deliberately. White people get upset over the strangest things.
Interesting view on internet outrage:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/outrage-rip-cecil-lion/400037/?utm_source=SFFB
QuoteMy Outrage Is Better Than Your Outrage
Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there's loftier righteousness to be had.
Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.
But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe's environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be "held accountable for his illegal action"—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she's far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.
Palmer didn't just kill a lion. He killed an especially good-looking and "beloved" lion in an ostentatious and gruesome fashion that culminated in decapitation. To make things worse, that lion had a human name. To make things worse still, that name was Cecil.
It's hard to think of a more innocent name than Cecil. Had the lion's name been Satan or Derek, the international firestorm might have been attenuated. Had Palmer not had a past that included sexual harassment complaints and pleading guilty to lying to federal wildlife officials about killing a black bear, he might have been less hateable. He also might have been less hateable had he been a humble cobbler, or literally anything other than a wealthy dentist. But every element of this story fell into place in a way that sparked international outrage beyond any outrage storm this year.
"Is it that difficult for you to get an erection that you need to kill things?" Jimmy Kimmel chided Palmer, in a rant-turned-tearful-plea to viewers to donate money to lion-tracking research. The segment got more than 6.5 million views on YouTube in two days. Palmer's professional credibility was destroyed by a flood of Yelp reviews that gave him one star on grounds that he is a murderer, from people who know nothing of his root-canal skills. "You kill a protected lion, we kill your shitty business :)," read one.
The dentist closed his practice and went into hiding. Many people called for his death, including the advocacy group PETA, specifically by way of hanging. CNN asked, "Where is Walter Palmer?" as if people needed to find him (and maybe bring him to justice, as many already believed they were.)
The Internet has served to facilitate outrage, as the Internet does: the hotter the better. And because the case is so visceral and bipartisan in its opposition to Palmer's act, few people stepped in to suggest that the fury, the people tweeting his home address, might be too much. That argument wins no outrage points.
Instead, the people who hadn't jumped on the Cecil-outrage bandwagon jumped on the superiority-outrage bandwagon. It's a bandwagon of outrage one-upmanship, and it's just as rewarding as the original outrage bandwagon. Anyone can play, like this:
It's fine to be outraged about one lion, but what about all of the other lions who are hunted and killed every year? There are 250 Cecils killed annually across Africa as trophies, and that's what you should really be outraged by. But good job caring now.
Actually, what about all of the animals? All of the cattle and fish and brilliant pigs who are systematically slaughtered for human consumption every day? Were you eating a hot dog when you posted that thing about Cecil on Facebook? Anyone who is not vegan is no better than the dentist Walter Palmer. That is what you really should be outraged by.
Actually, you only care about Zimbabwe when a lion is killed? Great of you. Killing animals is part of the circle of life, but you know what's not? Human trafficking. People are bought and sold as slaves today all over the world. Why are you talking about one aged jungle cat in a place where the relationship between impoverished pastoralist communities and wealthy foreign tourists is more complicated than you actually understand?
And I'm glad you're so concerned about human trafficking, but there will be no humans at all if we don't do something about climate change. Reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized farming is the real problem, and that's what you should be outraged by. You don't know what to care about. I know what to care about.
The Internet launders outrage and returns it to us as validation, in the form of likes and stars and hearts. The greatest return comes from a strong and superior point of view, on high moral ground. And there is, fortunately and unfortunately, always higher moral ground. Even when a dentist kills an adorable lion, and everyone is upset about it, there's better outrage ground to be won. The most widely accepted hierarchy of outrage seems to be: Single animal injured < single animal killed < multiple animals killed < systematic killing of animals < systematic oppression/torture of people < systematic killing of humans < end of all life due to uninhabitable planet.
To say that there's a more important issue in the world is always true, except in the case of climate change ending all life, both human and animal. So it's meaningless, even if it's fun, to go around one-upping people's outrage. Try it. Someone will express legitimate concern over something, and all you have to do is say there are more important things to be concerned about. All you have to do is use the phrase "spare me" and then say something about global warming. You can literally write, "My outrage is more legit than your outrage! Ahhh!"
Don't worry about that feeling a little too on-the-nose, because it doesn't matter, because no one will remember it. Next month the armchair lions-rights activists won't care about lions anymore, because lions-rights outrage will not be trending. They will be on to some new outrage. Many people are drawn to defend nature and underdogs (even when they are apex predators) and to hate wealthy, lying, violent dentists. But even more than that they are drawn to feeling superior and appearing wise, and being validated accordingly.
Quote from: Syt on August 01, 2015, 06:25:22 AM
Interesting view on internet outrage:
Quotehttp://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/outrage-rip-cecil-lion/400037/?utm_source=SFFB
...
But even more than that they are drawn to feeling superior and appearing wise, and being validated accordingly.
And don't we see this here all the time? ^_^
G.
Quote from: The Atlantic
It's hard to think of a more innocent name than Cecil. Had the lion's name been Satan or Derek, the international firestorm might have been attenuated.
Umm. Being named after one of history's most notorious imperialists isn't exactly innocent-sounding. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2015, 01:12:09 PM
Quote from: The Atlantic
It's hard to think of a more innocent name than Cecil. Had the lion's name been Satan or Derek, the international firestorm might have been attenuated.
Umm. Being named after one of history's most notorious imperialists isn't exactly innocent-sounding. :P
Few people will remember that, though. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2015, 01:12:09 PM
Quote from: The Atlantic
It's hard to think of a more innocent name than Cecil. Had the lion's name been Satan or Derek, the international firestorm might have been attenuated.
Umm. Being named after one of history's most notorious imperialists isn't exactly innocent-sounding. :P
Come on, The Ten Commandments isn't that bad :P
Quote from: Warspite on August 01, 2015, 05:06:55 AM
I've seen more outrage over one damn lion getting shot by accident than over the 200,000 dead in Syria killed deliberately. White people get upset over the strangest things.
Huh? :huh:
I just find this line of reasoning to be completely retarded. Expecting every emotional reaction to a perceived wrong to be perfectly measured against every other wrong happening in the universe right now just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. By this reasoning, if a stranger spits in your face when you are walking down a street, you have no right to react with any degree of outrage, since the harm that has just been inflicted is infinitesimally small compared to genocide.
The shock here is that it's a dentist. Dentists never hurt anyone.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2015, 01:35:40 PM
Huh? :huh:
I just find this line of reasoning to be completely retarded. Expecting every emotional reaction to a perceived wrong to be perfectly measured against every other wrong happening in the universe right now just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. By this reasoning, if a stranger spits in your face when you are walking down a street, you have no right to react with any degree of outrage, since the harm that has just been inflicted is infinitesimally small compared to genocide.
The stranger spitting in your face is personal. If the population as a whole reacted more strongly to the stranger spitting in your face than to an ongoing genocide, that would be a matter for curiosity or complaint even.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 02, 2015, 02:37:55 PMThe stranger spitting in your face is personal. If the population as a whole reacted more strongly to the stranger spitting in your face than to an ongoing genocide, that would be a matter for curiosity or complaint even.
lots of people grew up watching lion king. the murder of a poor, innocent simba by a wealthy villain is actually probably more personal than random syrians murdered by other random syrians.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 02, 2015, 04:03:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 02, 2015, 02:37:55 PMThe stranger spitting in your face is personal. If the population as a whole reacted more strongly to the stranger spitting in your face than to an ongoing genocide, that would be a matter for curiosity or complaint even.
lots of people grew up watching lion king. the murder of a poor, innocent simba by a wealthy villain is actually probably more personal than random syrians murdered by other random syrians.
Imagine Disney had made the film "the Zebra King" from the zebra perspective, with a zebra and his herd on the run from the Simba pride of lions, only to see his family killed one by one over the 90 minute film, culminating in our zebra hero being eaten alive after spraining his ankle while futilely trying to protect a baby...this dentist might not be seen as a villain today.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 02, 2015, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2015, 01:35:40 PM
Huh? :huh:
I just find this line of reasoning to be completely retarded. Expecting every emotional reaction to a perceived wrong to be perfectly measured against every other wrong happening in the universe right now just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. By this reasoning, if a stranger spits in your face when you are walking down a street, you have no right to react with any degree of outrage, since the harm that has just been inflicted is infinitesimally small compared to genocide.
The stranger spitting in your face is personal. If the population as a whole reacted more strongly to the stranger spitting in your face than to an ongoing genocide, that would be a matter for curiosity or complaint even.
I also question the statement that reaction to the lion being killed is stronger than one to Syria. We, as a society, have delegated our "outrage" on some crimes and wrong doings to the government, so that we do not have to do it on our own, so to speak - that is our governments declare wars, impose sanctions or jail true criminals without as having to organise a lynch mob every time someone commits a wrong of a certain kind. This leaves to us getting outraged over things where, if not for our outrage, the wrongdoer would go unpunished.
The "oh people react to lion but not to Syria conflict" is just a stupid position to hold - a sort of autistic internet "armchair ethics" that is usually espoused by males in their early twenties, who want to appear smart and "above the common rabble" (and probably read Ayn Rand and Nietzsche).
Quote from: LaCroix on August 02, 2015, 04:03:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 02, 2015, 02:37:55 PMThe stranger spitting in your face is personal. If the population as a whole reacted more strongly to the stranger spitting in your face than to an ongoing genocide, that would be a matter for curiosity or complaint even.
lots of people grew up watching lion king. the murder of a poor, innocent simba by a wealthy villain is actually probably more personal than random syrians murdered by other random syrians.
What if Simba was named "de Klerk". Would that have an effect?
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2015, 01:35:40 PM
Quote from: Warspite on August 01, 2015, 05:06:55 AM
I've seen more outrage over one damn lion getting shot by accident than over the 200,000 dead in Syria killed deliberately. White people get upset over the strangest things.
Huh? :huh:
I just find this line of reasoning to be completely retarded. Expecting every emotional reaction to a perceived wrong to be perfectly measured against every other wrong happening in the universe right now just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. By this reasoning, if a stranger spits in your face when you are walking down a street, you have no right to react with any degree of outrage, since the harm that has just been inflicted is infinitesimally small compared to genocide.
You're getting worked up - and probably composing draft after draft before hitting Post - over a lion killed
by mistake.
A large number of other people have actually spent time and money carrying out this witch hunt by turning up at this guy's dental practice. Time and money because a lion was killed by mistake.
Nothing to do with autistic internet ethics, but the stupidity of people.
I agree that like all righteous Internet indignations, it crossed the level of appropriate response 10 minutes into it, and is now just an online social event for aimless people to be a part of.
I don't understand the point about the lion being killed "by mistake". The act of trophy hunting is abominable, whether the right or a wrong animal is killed. The guy deserves to have his life ruined over this - so perhaps it will make another trophy hunter think twice before engaging in his "hobby".
Someone is upset that he's too old to be considered a trophy anymore.
And then there's people who seem to take the Cecil shitstorm as a challenge if (if!) this Daily Wail article is to be believed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182671/Now-Idaho-huntress-taunts-world-sickening-Facebook-brags-killing-old-giraffe-warns-haters-s-come.html
QuoteEXCLUSIVE: 'You're gonna have so much more to be p****d about': Idaho huntress taunts the world post-Cecil by boasting about killing 'an old giraffe' and warns 'haters' there's MORE to come
The death of Cecil the lion has shocked the world and led to a backlash against big game trophy hunting - but this Idaho woman knows what side she's on.
Sabrina Corgatelli, a university accountant from McCammon, Idaho, has gleefully posted images of herself on big game hunts comparable to that taken by Walter Palmer onto social media in the midst of the controversy.
In one image she poses over a downed giraffe, accompanied with the caption: 'Day #2 I got a amazing old Giraffe. Such a amazing animal!! I couldn't be any happier!! My emotion after getting him was a feeling I will never forget!!!'
And despite a stream of obscene and disparaging comments accusing her of animal abuse and heartlessness, the huntress has vowed to continue sharing the images regardless of what her 'haters' think.
Corgatelli, who poses in pink hunting gear and hunts with a powerful composite bow and manicured nails, appears to be keeping the world updated on an ongoing trip to the Kruger National Park in South Africa.
The hunting enthusiast, who has a public Facebook page documenting her exploits, has shared images of her quarry standing over quarry, seemingly plucked from the extensive game reserves in the east of the country. She has even posed over the corpse of a lion, apparently slain by her boyfriend.
Outside of hunting, she is a senior accountant for Idaho State University, where she deals with grants and contracts. She has worked there for eight months according to her LinkedIn page.
Her prey includes a huge giraffe, a kudu, an impala, a wildebeest and a warthog - with seemingly more to come.
Hundreds of people have protested her actions on the page - calling her 'deranged' and 'a disgrace to humanity', as well as vitriol too obscene to reproduce.
But Corgatelli, who faced objections even before Cecil's death caused international outcry, is unmoved by their complaints.
Posting early Friday morning, she said: All you haters, This is for you!! Have a great day, cuz I know I will!!'
It was accompanied by an image of a smiling Leonardo DiCaprio in his role as the Great Gatsby, captioned: 'To all the haters - stay tuned, you're gonna have so much more to be p***ed about.'
According to her periodic updates, Corgatelli's hunt began on July 24, when she boasted of killing a kudu, an type of African antelope.
She wrote: 'Yesterday was day 1 an amazing day!!! Got my beautiful beautiful Kudu!! It was my #1 want on my list and I got him on the first day!!! Loving it there!!'
Less than 24 hours later she posted her most dramatic image - showing her standing over a fallen giraffe, its neck wrapped around her body.
She said: 'Day #2 I got a amazing old Giraffe. Such a amazing animal!! I couldn't be any happier!! My emotion after getting him was a feeling I will never forget!!!'
Later updates showed her with a warthog, which she said was 'fun' to hunt, followed by the 'beautiful' wildebeest and then the impala, another sort of antelope.
Of the warthog hunt, she said: '13 inch wart hog!! What a fun hunt!!! Loving it here!!
'The guys at old days safari in South Africa have got me on another amazing animal.'
Corgatelli has even turned to the Bible to justify her actions - most recently she posted verses from the book of Genesis.
They feature Isaac, Abraham's son, tells his offspring: 'take your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me'.
In the updates she name-checked Old Days Safari, a local hunting company which offers game tours of the area.
A package for most of the animals she is shown hunting costs $5,400, while the giraffe carries a 'trophy fee' of $2,600 by itself.
Hunting giraffe is legal in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe, where fees of up to $15,000 per kill have been recorded.
In these countries, populations have been increasing in recent years, though global giraffe numbers are plummeting.
In Zimbabwe, hunting lions, leopards and elephants has been suspended in the wake of Cecil's death, but giraffe are still considered fair game.
GAZILLIONS of pictures in the article for those interested.
Also, apparently we now live in a "post-Cecil world" according to Daily Mail. :hmm:
I hope someone shoots that bitch.
The religious freaks on my facebook are trying to turn the Cecil outrage into Abortion outrage.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 03, 2015, 09:21:36 AM
The religious freaks on my facebook are trying to turn the Cecil outrage into Abortion outrage.
Let's put a foetus and a lion into a cage and see who wins. :rolleyes:
Wasn't aware that bow and arrows were a thing in modern day big game hunting.
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2015, 09:24:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 03, 2015, 09:21:36 AM
The religious freaks on my facebook are trying to turn the Cecil outrage into Abortion outrage.
Let's put a foetus and a lion into a cage and see who wins. :rolleyes:
They are more going with the 10k foetii and a lion in a cage angle. Smother the Lion to death with baby corpses.
Quote from: celedhring on August 03, 2015, 09:30:18 AM
Wasn't aware that bow and arrows were a thing in modern day big game hunting.
Must be a hipster thing.
Quote from: Syt on August 03, 2015, 10:21:19 AM
Must be a hipster thing.
It's a hard core thing. Ted Nugent bow hunts.
If I ever get into hunting, it will be with a bow. I shoot for target practice, and believe me, I know it would be a bit too easy with a rifle. Plus you have to track the animal after you shoot it with a bow, adding to the dificulty and skills needed.
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 03, 2015, 11:50:02 AM
If I ever get into hunting, it will be with a bow. I shoot for target practice, and believe me, I know it would be a bit too easy with a rifle. Plus you have to track the animal after you shoot it with a bow, adding to the dificulty and skills needed.
It's more challenging for the animal as well. :)
This is the best hysterical Marti thread in ages. The Onion couldn't do a better job of showing how achingly funny aging hipsters are than Marti is doing.
Let's keep this going. College football is still a month away.
Have been doing some soul searching on this and while I would definitely not engage in trophy hunting (or any hunting for that matter), I can't decide if trophy hunting is objectively evil or my opposition to it is essentially telling other people how to live their lives. :hmm:
I suppose you have to balance the needs and "rights". A lion has a "right" to live - this "right" is trumped by a human's right to survive/defend himself/herself, to get food and fur (where no alternative can conceivably be obtained) but not by a "right" to get entertained, I reckon. But what if someone has a nature where they get a (healthy) sense of accomplishment from stalking and hunting an animal that they cannot fulfil by other (less drastic) means - can this need trump the lion's "right" to live? Would this assessment vary when talking about hunting an animal who is a natural prey (such as deer) as opposed to a natural predator (such as lion) - as in the former case the man's actions would be more in line with the natural outcome of things?
And when lions/bears/wolves have the gall to hunt/kill/eat us, we get all butthurt about it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 04, 2015, 03:17:35 AM
And when lions/bears/wolves have the gall to hunt/kill/eat us, we get all butthurt about it.
Read the first sentence of the second paragraph of my post.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2015, 03:36:06 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 04, 2015, 03:17:35 AM
And when lions/bears/wolves have the gall to hunt/kill/eat us, we get all butthurt about it.
Read the first sentence of the second paragraph of my post.
I did. I think you're overanalyzing.
Humans are hypocritical, narcissistic gits.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2015, 02:56:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2015, 02:44:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2015, 02:32:25 AM
Change is bad. Film at 11.
I think you might mean "full video stream available now"
Speaking of which, this part I hate - there is less and less written online content and more some films showing people talking. :P
Yeah. It really annoys me.
I read way faster than people can talk.
I feel like im wasting my time when I watch a video instead of reading an article.
QuoteFollowing the death of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, many governments are beginning to question the ethics and fallout of trophy hunting as a sport, while others say the arguments against it are overblown. The Onion breaks down the pros and cons of big-game hunting:
PRO
Gives animal kingdom stern reminder about who's top dog
Get to be one of very few people to experience raw, primal exhilaration of being reviled by tens of millions of people
Lot of empty wall space in apartment
Killing fun
Chance of being killed by lion drastically reduced once they are extinct
Part of time-honored tradition that dates all the way back to humankind's earliest assholes
CON
Shoulder pain from recoil of elephant gun
Already hard enough for female lions to find decent mate
Taxidermists often get eyes wrong
Bizarre sexual gratification of murdering large game can only satisfy for so long before you must turn to humans
Lion's next of kin only get small portion of hunting fee
When people ask "Do you shoot defenseless animals with metal arrows, wait until they bleed out, and then stuff their remains for decoration?" the answer is "Yes"
I like how people are getting particularly outraged that the lion was *decapitated* after it was shot & killed. Like OMG that's so much worse!
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2015, 08:18:48 AM
I like how people are getting particularly outraged that the lion was *decapitated* after it was shot & killed. Like OMG that's so much worse!
Well, I guess it's like fucking a human corpse - no point getting worked over what one does to dead matter, I guess.
You do realize that all trophies have be decapitated soon after they've been deadened, right?
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 08:35:09 AM
Well, I guess it's like fucking a human corpse - no point getting worked over what one does to dead matter, I guess.
Whatever floats your boat, man.
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2015, 08:59:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 08:35:09 AM
Well, I guess it's like fucking a human corpse - no point getting worked over what one does to dead matter, I guess.
Whatever floats your boat, man.
Disagree. I don't want necrophiliacs to tell me what other things are "like" their particular perversion. I don't really care about necrophilia, but necrophiliacs are just too creepy. Especially ones that can fuck human corpses without "getting worked."
As long as he's on a different continent I'll ignore it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 08:35:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2015, 08:18:48 AM
I like how people are getting particularly outraged that the lion was *decapitated* after it was shot & killed. Like OMG that's so much worse!
Well, I guess it's like fucking a human corpse - no point getting worked over what one does to dead matter, I guess.
Why do you hate your own kind so much?
Quote from: Warspite on August 01, 2015, 05:06:55 AM
I've seen more outrage over one damn lion getting shot by accident than over the 200,000 dead in Syria killed deliberately. White people get upset over the strangest things.
Oh for godsake. Yes I do care about things other than human beings dying every once in a while. There are important things in the world besides people dying and it is neither strange nor monstrous to have interests and concerns outside of people dying.
Even non-white people sometimes care about things besides the fact that somewhere somebody is dying. Or at least my one black friend seems to.
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2015, 08:18:48 AM
I like how people are getting particularly outraged that the lion was *decapitated* after it was shot & killed. Like OMG that's so much worse!
Some people live particularly sheltered existences.