|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Mar 15, 2012 12:46:37 GMT -5
This thread makes me hungry for a leopard burger.
|
|
CaptainFall
Samurai Cop
'Fascinating is the word of the day'
Posts: 2,151
|
Post by CaptainFall on Mar 15, 2012 13:13:17 GMT -5
I'm sure they didn't kill those animals thinking "We're doing something really good for the local community here". They wouldn't have crass photos taken with a smug look on their face if that was the case.
I really don't understand hunting. I can't see how much enjoyment you can get out of killing something.
|
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Mar 15, 2012 13:14:51 GMT -5
I can see both sides. I'm an animal person, always have been and always will be. I don't hunt, haven't even been on a hunting trip since I was around 6 (grandfather, huting deer, I carried stuff) becaue it just doesn't appeal to me.
Having said that, if the point about the meat all being donated to villages is true, then that's actually doing quite a lot. Looking at the pics, there's close to a ton of usable meat there, which divided up can go a LONG way to feed a lot of people for a good while. The pics, while I wouldn't (and frankly couldn't) do it, are not uncommon.
In theory, the people who received the meat from the kills would have had to go out hunting these same animals, most likely with less technology and protection then the Trump kids had given the money they could spend. Thus, while the Trump kids may have done this for the thrill or some other macho BS, those villagers that received the meat would have been on the same hunt without the (assuming) advanced and expensive weapons and protective gear (vehicles and such) which would have put many of them in some serious danger just to feed themselves and their families.
Not really definitive one way or the other in terms of an opinion, but figured I'd throw it out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Mar 15, 2012 13:16:58 GMT -5
Yes, if only they came from a wealthy family who could easily donate money instead of three animals they killed for sport. Yeah, an odds are they donated it to local tribesmen when they realized this might get them some bad press. Pretty much. |
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,609
|
Post by trollrogue on Mar 15, 2012 13:51:49 GMT -5
As long as the meat went to a good cause and wasn't wasted, I don't care. They had their fun, the locals get a lot of food and they did nothing wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Mar 15, 2012 14:04:00 GMT -5
Yeah, an odds are they donated it to local tribesmen when they realized this might get them some bad press. Pretty much. Wow, I'm amazed that something good was done for people, and we live in a world so cynical that people HAVE to pick it apart. Yes, I admit, they probably did that for good press. The point is, it happened. The net result was good, regardless of the drive behind it. For f***'s sake. "I dunno, they fed a lot of people, but they still look like douchebag's, so I'll conveniently ignore it and look for a reason to demonize them". |
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Mar 15, 2012 15:17:53 GMT -5
Wow, I'm amazed that something good was done for people, and we live in a world so cynical that people HAVE to pick it apart. Yes, I admit, they probably did that for good press. The point is, it happened. The net result was good, regardless of the drive behind it. For f***'s sake. "I dunno, they fed a lot of people, but they still look like douchebag's, so I'll conveniently ignore it and look for a reason to demonize them". Motives are important. Although I agree we do tend to be overly cynical. |
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Mar 15, 2012 15:25:05 GMT -5
Wow, I'm amazed that something good was done for people, and we live in a world so cynical that people HAVE to pick it apart. Yes, I admit, they probably did that for good press. The point is, it happened. The net result was good, regardless of the drive behind it. For f***'s sake. "I dunno, they fed a lot of people, but they still look like douchebag's, so I'll conveniently ignore it and look for a reason to demonize them". Motives are important. Although I agree we do tend to be overly cynical. Yes, motives are important, but I feel like giving the motive more weight than the net result is really, really dumb. Yes, they probably gave the meat away to starving people for good press. And you know what? I can't bring myself to get mad about that, even knowing that the motive is somewhat disingenuous, the actual act is good. The net result is a positive one, so what's the problem? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 15:25:27 GMT -5
Wow, I'm amazed that something good was done for people, and we live in a world so cynical that people HAVE to pick it apart. Yes, I admit, they probably did that for good press. The point is, it happened. The net result was good, regardless of the drive behind it. For f***'s sake. "I dunno, they fed a lot of people, but they still look like douchebag's, so I'll conveniently ignore it and look for a reason to demonize them". . . . ehhhh they could have fed those people w/o killing an elephant so its not that we're cynical, just calling a spade a spade. |
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Mar 15, 2012 16:13:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Mar 15, 2012 16:18:40 GMT -5
Wow, I'm amazed that something good was done for people, and we live in a world so cynical that people HAVE to pick it apart. Yes, I admit, they probably did that for good press. The point is, it happened. The net result was good, regardless of the drive behind it. For f***'s sake. "I dunno, they fed a lot of people, but they still look like douchebag's, so I'll conveniently ignore it and look for a reason to demonize them". . . . ehhhh they could have fed those people w/o killing an elephant so its not that we're cynical, just calling a spade a spade. This. They could've just as easily used their daddy's money to feed those people without killing an elephant and a leopard. The croc and buffalo I'm not miffed about. |
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Mar 15, 2012 17:29:03 GMT -5
Motives are important. Although I agree we do tend to be overly cynical. Yes, motives are important, but I feel like giving the motive more weight than the net result is really, really dumb. I have to admit, I'm pretty baffled by this. It's completely possible to be glad people got fed while simultaneously recognizing that the only reason they were fed was to save a pair of brutal people's reputation in the press, and continuing to feel disgust at those people. These aren't mutually exclusive, and I feel like pretending that they are would be the truly dumb thing. |
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Mar 15, 2012 20:32:56 GMT -5
those people without killing an elephant and a leopard. The croc and buffalo I'm not miffed about. Why is killing a croc and a buffalo okay but killing a leopard and elephant aren't? None of those animals are exactly protected or endangered. Why should they feel bad because they killed the animals we like? Again, I say this as someone who doesn't like hunting...but I'm not going to condemn them for it when it was well within the legal boundaries. Also, while we're on the subject of what's okay and what isn't...I found this to be pretty fascinating, and I'm sure it might spark some decent debate; Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by VenomFang on Mar 15, 2012 20:35:52 GMT -5
I dont approve of what they did but I am a fan of the Celebrity Apprentice and wanna keep on watching it.
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,609
|
Post by trollrogue on Mar 15, 2012 20:53:15 GMT -5
I'm breaking my own gimmick here, if a post sums up precisely what I was gonna say (thank you That Ric Guy) I just quote it and bow outta the thread gracefully. But something inside prevents me from ignoring the gall of a CEO who is so out of touch with his own consumers. Camping World has a problem with this?! Seriously? For the love of sanity, they market to people that seek to return to nature. People that desire to live off the land, survive on nothing but their instincts alone without the comforts of civilization. People that would rather hunt and kill their own meat, and not drive to a Super-Market to purchase slaughterhouse-raised, genetically-engineered (some say tortured) pigs/cattle/etc... Who is this guy to say that the Trumps' actions are any less humane than buying a burger at McDonald's and morally-condoning this 'mass-murder' of animals on a much grander, sickeningly-capitalistic scale? At least the Trumps had the decency to look their game in the eye before killing them (for food). Tell me which is a bigger lack of respect here, 1) having dead carcasses of animals on display as trophies in a picture, 2) taking Super-Markets, fast-food chains, butcher shops, delicatessens, restaurants, CONVENIENCE stores for granted when the people that the Trumps fed with those 'kills' have probably never eaten so well in their lives-- and will probably never enjoy another meal like that as long as they live. So he's 'totally disgusted' by these pictures? I hope he's a vegan or I'm siccing D-Bryan on this oddly emotional, hypocritically bum-puzzled CEO. |
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Mar 15, 2012 22:10:51 GMT -5
At least the Trumps had the decency to look their game in the eye before killing them (for food). What's decent about it? I'm the first to say that hunting is better than the meat industry. And if you can honestly tell me that the Trumps are live-off-the-land naturalists who only eat what they kill, I might change my mind about their relationship with nature. Is there some evidence for that? In this case, they're pleasure hunters. They're rich men who came to subjugate powerful creatures in an attempt to make themselves feel big and strong. They weren't hunting for food. They were hunting for their own egos. The fact that they cast off the carcasses to the locals doesn't mean those animals were killed for food. They were killed to give a couple of rich boys a thrill up their legs. |
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Mar 15, 2012 22:14:34 GMT -5
Also, I'm not against hunting if you're going to eat the meat as long as you're consistent about it. One example is Ted Nugent, that dude hunts all the time and has for a long time, I'm cool with that. However, people that hunt and then hang the heads on their walls, or pleasure hunters as Piccolo said, I personally don't like that.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Mar 15, 2012 22:25:01 GMT -5
At least the Trumps had the decency to look their game in the eye before killing them (for food). What's decent about it? I'm the first to say that hunting is better than the meat industry. And if you can honestly tell me that the Trumps are live-off-the-land naturalists who only eat what they kill, I might change my mind about their relationship with nature. Is there some evidence for that? In this case, they're pleasure hunters. They're rich men who came to subjugate powerful creatures in an attempt to make themselves feel big and strong. They weren't hunting for food. They were hunting for their own egos. The fact that they cast off the carcasses to the locals doesn't mean those animals were killed for food. They were killed to give a couple of rich boys a thrill up their legs. And yet the locals still get to eat. Doesn't that make the ends justify the means? Does it matter who killed it when the result is the same? I think this has more to do with people hating rich people for being rich than it does the actually killing of the animals |
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Mar 15, 2012 22:30:17 GMT -5
I'm breaking my own gimmick here, if a post sums up precisely what I was gonna say (thank you That Ric Guy) I just quote it and bow outta the thread gracefully. But something inside prevents me from ignoring the gall of a CEO who is so out of touch with his own consumers. Camping World has a problem with this?! Seriously? For the love of sanity, they market to people that seek to return to nature. People that desire to live off the land, survive on nothing but their instincts alone without the comforts of civilization. People that would rather hunt and kill their own meat, and not drive to a Super-Market to purchase slaughterhouse-raised, genetically-engineered (some say tortured) pigs/cattle/etc... Who is this guy to say that the Trumps' actions are any less humane than buying a burger at McDonald's and morally-condoning this 'mass-murder' of animals on a much grander, sickeningly-capitalistic scale? At least the Trumps had the decency to look their game in the eye before killing them (for food). Tell me which is a bigger lack of respect here, 1) having dead carcasses of animals on display as trophies in a picture, 2) taking Super-Markets, fast-food chains, butcher shops, delicatessens, restaurants, CONVENIENCE stores for granted when the people that the Trumps fed with those 'kills' have probably never eaten so well in their lives-- and will probably never enjoy another meal like that as long as they live. So he's 'totally disgusted' by these pictures? I hope he's a vegan or I'm siccing D-Bryan on this oddly emotional, hypocritically bum-puzzled CEO. Hell, eating a store bought chicken is a hell of a lot less humane then hunting. Yes they hunted. But they also did not cast things away. They gave food to the local economies. Pumped money to the local tribes to guide them on thier hunt. |
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Mar 15, 2012 22:34:51 GMT -5
What's decent about it? I'm the first to say that hunting is better than the meat industry. And if you can honestly tell me that the Trumps are live-off-the-land naturalists who only eat what they kill, I might change my mind about their relationship with nature. Is there some evidence for that? In this case, they're pleasure hunters. They're rich men who came to subjugate powerful creatures in an attempt to make themselves feel big and strong. They weren't hunting for food. They were hunting for their own egos. The fact that they cast off the carcasses to the locals doesn't mean those animals were killed for food. They were killed to give a couple of rich boys a thrill up their legs. And yet the locals still get to eat. Doesn't that make the ends justify the means? Does it matter who killed it when the result is the same? I think this has more to do with people hating rich people for being rich than it does the actually killing of the animals I'll repeat myself: it's possible to be happy that the people got food, and yet recognize it as a PR move to cover the men's brutality. These are not mutually exclusive. And it wouldn't matter who killed the animals, no... what matters is WHY they were killed. That is the criteria by which I judge the character of the killers. If their goal had been "feed the people", the people could've been fed through any number of avenues. I trust that is obvious to everyone... that killing leopards and elephants is not the only way to feed the hungry? As for your last statement, that's a hundred and ten percent wrong. Could not possibly be more wrong. And that's all I can say without getting into my political philosophy. |
|
helped $lim jinx NXT. Woops
