Indeed, it may well be strange to some who are unfamiliar with hunting but the mere fact that you don’t understand it doesn’t make it narcisistic or a personality disorder. It strike me as narcisistic to assert that what is strange to you is disordered.
The “people of Zimbabwe” are not the ones threatening the dentist; they have other concerns in their lives. The African nations that have set up preserves have largely done so at the insistance (and often financial support) of rich nations.
But it’s clearly not just me is it
You can in some places but generally not because it is not popular. But since you are too lazy to do your own research here is a place where you can buy it online:
My point is that nobody hunts for food. Food is a benefit of hunting but not the purpose. It is a very inefficient way to put meat on the table and has been since the domestication of animals some 8000 years ago.
I don’t doubt that there are many who have no experience with hunting and can’t understand the sport. There are many with pitchforks in hand ready to lynch the dentist. That’s a fine mob you’ve gathered around yourself.
Well he doesnt belong to an endangered species so maybe we should wound him a bit. Run after him in a car for 40 hours and then skin him. Seems fair
I won’t say ‘nothing’, but it does not exonerate him. When you pick up a lethal weapon, you should take full responsibility. Likewise when you kill a member of an endangered species. You cannot blame the guide or mommy or daddy. You pulled the trigger.
That, and it is a source of revenue from tourism.
Absolutely. None of these are mutually exclusive except to anti-hunting purists.
Because, as we have learned from Disney, animals are just human beings with funny faces.
This is just a throw away line and not the point. It is being promoted that the kill was illegal because the lion was protected which is not the reason that it was an illegal hunt. Abortion is legal you can’t charge the woman or the doctor with murder. It was pointed out that one lion provokes at outrage where millions of humans killed in the womb it promoted as a right.
Anytime someone screws up as royally as the dentist did it reflects poorly on others engaged in the activity. But there is a difference between doing something wrong and doing something intrinsically wrong. And there is a difference between negligence and criminal intent.
What was his screw up? He trusted someone who was in a position to know? From a legal point of view what did he do wrong? There was nothing done that was intrinsically wrong. It is your point of view only which you believe makes it so.
Oh yeah and Disney is the bench mark of morality
He killed Cecil which nobody wanted. Whether he was criminal, negligent, or an innocent victim is something for the courts to work out. I posted an article which suggested that the courts have decided to hold a local hunter guide responsible for this error.
Other hunters say that he was reasonable. You have not said anything that would say otherwise. It does look like he has a license but that the land owner didn’t.
This is what happened so what is your beef?
Well it’s debatable if this was legal and it addressed the point you thought you had made. Lawful fair and moral aren’t the same.
He didn’t “screw up”, he lured an animal he was not allowed to kill from land he was not supposed to hunt it on, and having taken it upon himself to do that, killed it inhumanely causing it to suffer for 40 hours.
I don’t think it’s a warped opinion, we are talking about a 40 hour pursuit here so that’s exactly what I thought.
It is a sad situation both from the lost of the lion and the man who’s life is ruined.