-
etc…
-
It seems I'm not clear in my reasoning and am therefore invited to get in the sea, as somehow not agreeing with forcing a tribe off their land and into a religion is exactly the same as not objecting loudly to trophy hunting.
So I am going to spell my reasoning out here.
Objections to hunting:
1 - it kills animals and therefore it's just always wrong, fine but then in my view you need to be vegetarian as meat eating outsources it. I am a meat eater so I can't be preachy, though I honestly doubt I'd have great fun and would seek out killing animals, even if it's for survival.
2 - it's unnecessary
Such as badger killing, which has no benefit, and shooting animals for the lulz with no benefit for conversation, local people, nature... (that's what the hole discussion is about, it does seem to have benefits, though obv. safaris or taking photos are a win win) and I am against that sort of hunting
3 - it's animal cruelty
Fox hunting with dogs, why on earth would anybody do that? So, it's a no from me. I assume these trophy hunters kill the animal fast.
4 - it endangers the species by overhunting
Which doesn't seem to be the case here...I am also against that, ivory hunting is a prime example of that. It seems even responsible selling it endangers the animals as it creates a market regardless.
5 - there are alternatives
Which there may be, but it doesn't seem to be so clear-cut, as trophy hunting and safaris both exist, it's not either-or
6 - it's done by distasteful people that want to put animal corpse skins in their homesCan't disagree with that. But I don't see that as a reason for a ban either.
Now, maybe I missed something and Trump's proposal is bad news for various other reasons. It could encourage illegal hunting for example, which does endanger species, or encourage ivory sales by bringing in trophies with ivory, which then encourages the trade which is very bad news.
But I can't really preach and be outraged over the hunting itself, without being a massive hypocrite.
-
1 - vegan even, you are even stricter than me :)
2 - we agree
3, 4 -From what I know trophy hunting is strictly controlled and isn't a inhumane way of killing (though hunters can get it wrong obv.)I am not sure about 5: It's commonly echoed that "people get a kick out if it" and "they will do horrible things". There is some research indicating that people who abuse animals, like setting them on fire, poisoning them and people that are domestic abusers are more likely to commit crimes.
You could be right, I just don't know.
6 - That's quite possible, but I just don't know. If the trophy hunting is a slippery slope to all sorts of horrible behaviour/crimes, then yeah, there's a good reason to ban it.
I would definitely not encourage it either, I mean, why not go on a private safari and take a super close up photo? Probably way harder too. So you could be right that Trump's agreement means an encouragement that has all sorts of harmful effects down the road.
But as others said, that may not help either if safari's aren't suitable. It's a tricky one for sure, and my "i'm sort of ok with it in this gray world with gray moral solutions" is not the same as "yeah lets do this, all the time, it's FANTASTIC"
-
You can't replace trophy hunting with safaris and derive the same economic benefit. Trophy hunting is ten times, even a hundred times more lucrative. Rich people don't want to look at animals, they want to kill them and own them. That's why they are rich. They are psychopaths.
-
Trump probably has a pal who wants to import a stuffed elephant head or some such thing. Said pal asks Trump to fix things. That's how Trump's idea of governance works, a small elite looking out for each other. Philosophy about animal welfare or conservation was never a factor.
Re Mnuchin's picture at the Bureau of Printing. He doesn't think of the Treasury as a responsibility. It is a plaything that Trump has given him. All these guys are entitled to do whatever they want now, at least in their opinion.
That is why Trump constantly tweets about winning the election, it is his justification for anything he does. -
So to get back on topic, the orange just went and gave churches more rights in influencing politics.
-
Distasteful people MUST be stopped from doing distastefull things.
An argument often used in favour of making homosexuality illegal, preventing birth control and generally telling other people what they can and can't do based upon one's own subjective beliefs. A very dangerous argument.
it should still be banned as it would be done by distasteful people
Replace 'distasteful people' with 'Jews', 'blacks' or 'women' and see how you like that argument. Telling people what they can and can't do because you don't like them - which is really all that 'distasteful people' means - is a route to autocracy and despotism.
-
An argument often used in favour of making powerful men resist the temptation to grope their young female subordinates, police beating up suspects who they know committed the crime and generally telling other people what they can and can't do based upon one's own subjective beliefs which are shared by the majority of the country. A very safe argument.
Not really. The reasons why those things are and ought to be illegal is because assault, whether sexual assault or assault by the police, is wrong because it infringes someone's right to live their life in the manner they see fit without being subjected to physical assault. Not because you, I or even 'the majority' consider it to be 'distasteful'.
Obviously these things are subjective, I just like to think that certain distasteful things - hunting, sexual abuse, beating people up, groping, wolf-whistling, objectifying women, abusing minorities, kicking cats, etc etc - are things the majority can agree need to be stamped out.
And if the majority consider that homosexuality is something that need to be stamped out? As, not all that long ago, they did in this country? By your argument it should also be made illegal, if the majority find it 'distasteful'.
-
Obviously distasteful is subjective, just like what constitutes assault is subjective
Distasteful is subjective, yes. Assault is not. It's unwanted physical contact or something which puts someone in fear of unwanted physical contact.
My comparison between hunting and homosexuality is merely to illustrate the potential harm behind your argument that if the majority of people in a country find something distasteful then it should be made illegal. Introducing the concept of informed consent is irrelvant in those circumstances, as it would only make a difference if the hypothetical majority of people whose distaste should be given effect in law drew the distinction between homosexuality with and without consent. Which, until fairly recently in this country, they did not - both were illegal.
The fundamental point is a very simple one, and it may be my attempt to illustrate it by way of analogies is confusing the issue. You believe, I gather, that a majority of people should be able to ban something simply because they find it distasteful. I don't. I think something should only be made illegal because it has a direct and unwanted impact on another person, not because that third party simply disapproves of it.
Now, you could argue that under my definition hunting should be illegal because an animal being hunted should be treated as if it were a person, and that hunting has a direct and unwanted impact on the animal, and therefore the animal is entitled to the protection of the law. That's a very interesting argument, but it's totally different to the argument you've been advancing.
-
I would argue that most people believe that they have a right to live in a civilised society where distasteful things don't happen
As a final counterpoint, for now at least, I would argue that people have a right in a civilised society to live their lives as they see fit, provided that they do not infringe other people's right to do the same, rather than being told what they can and can't do merely because a majority find something offensive.
Hat tip to John Stuart Mills, naturally.
-
This could be used to reverse hunting bans.
NotThamesWater
kboy
deleted
JWestland
Malaconotus
davidual
Murphy's_Law
Brommers
n3il
.mo.
PhilPub
Dammit-
Post a reply
About
US Politics
Posted by
@dst2
'tf is keming?