Poll of the Day > Are you a bad person if you hunt elephants?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm pretty sure hunting elephants makes you trash that probably deserves to be killed by an elephant.

Gotta hunt something.
---

Poaching isn't cool or good. Hunting a old aggressive male elephant so younger ones can bread is fine.
---

darcandkharg31 posted...

Gotta hunt something.

What an obnoxiously large image. Also hilarious in its size, but obnoxious nonetheless.

idk, drawing a line at elephants is kinda silly and arbitrary. It's like saying "hunting is fine up to this point!" when the point isn't human or a major pet-animal (cat, dog, and cat-dog).

Contrary to your silly assertions, the only practical morality is partly tied into the legality which is based largely on conservation efforts. Hunting a species to extinction is generally wrong. However, there's less inherent morality outside of that and it's not going to be anything close to a visibly defined one especially since this is just about hunting *elephants* rather than objecting either to all hunting or all consumption of flesh.

Broadly speaking, hunting with the intention of using the animal for meat has a higher morality than mere trophy hunting but, at the same time, there's nothing to suggest that trophy hunting is inherently immoral even if the practice strikes many of us as distasteful.
---

poach poachers
---

Zeus posted...

Contrary to your silly assertions, the only practical morality is partly tied into the legality

My option was for those that viewed in entirely on the basis of legality, as implied by "I base my moral code simply on the law". Granted, I could have included many more poll options to more adequately cover possible views on the topic, but that would be frivolous and people will always be dissatisfied with the poll options, you being a prime example because I've certainly seen you whining about it several times, and not just in my topics.

Zeus posted...

Broadly speaking, hunting with the intention of using the animal for meat has a higher morality than mere trophy hunting but

I probably could've clarified but I figured it was clear I was referring to people who are hunting for sport. I'll accept the responsibility for this one and admit that it's my bad for not being more specific.

Zeus posted...

there's nothing to suggest that trophy hunting is inherently immoral even if the practice strikes many of us as distasteful.

I would say that taking a life for no purpose other than pride and/or fun is inherently immoral, though I grant that's subjective. But then so is all morality, so you could apply your "nothing inherently immoral" shlock onto anything.

DistantMemory posted...

Are you a bad person if you hunt elephants?

Depends. I mean if it's for survival I don't think hunting any Animal is bad. If it's for sport, to sell bits for profit or anything like that then yes.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Depends. I mean if it's for survival I don't think hunting any Animal is bad.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/be/82/15/be821544fc5f328567cb538f96edb49a--snowball-too-cute.jpg

DistantMemory posted...

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/be/82/15/be821544fc5f328567cb538f96edb49a--snowball-too-cute.jpg

Could make a nice blanket for a baby to keep it warm.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

DistantMemory posted...

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/be/82/15/be821544fc5f328567cb538f96edb49a--snowball-too-cute.jpg

Could make a nice blanket for a baby to keep it warm.

You horrible, nasty, vulgar man!

Depends on if the elephants in question are pink.

DistantMemory posted...

You horrible, nasty, vulgar man!

Not really. If you're part of some tribe I'd imagine you'll do anything to survive.
---

In of itself I do not see hunting as morally wrong. Animals are animals and beneath man, even if we find some so wuvy and fwuffy and cwuddaly cute, majestic, or close-as-a-friend or whatever else. However, elephants are largely an endangered species. It's not the same as going out and hunting a deer. I would say that hunting an endangered species without VERY good reason (like, say, a murderous tiger or starvation) means you are intentionally, knowingly, driving an entire species extinct just for trophies and/or the thrill. I feel that that is, most certainly, worthy of being called 'bad'.
---

DistantMemory posted...

My option was for those that viewed in entirely on the basis of legality, as implied by "I base my moral code simply on the law". Granted, I could have included many more poll options to more adequately cover possible views on the topic, but that would be frivolous and people will always be dissatisfied with the poll options, you being a prime example because I've certainly seen you whining about it several times, and not just in my topics.

The problem with that argument is that most people base their morality on society which is effectively the same as basing it around the law. There are relatively few things we accept as moral absolutes and not even all societies have accepted those as absolutes. Granted, there are plenty of immoral laws -- many of which involve taxation, executions, deprivation of property, etc -- but this isn't a matter of laws permitting it so much as it is laws not banning it (although there are countless restrictions)

DistantMemory posted...

I would say that taking a life for no purpose other than pride and/or fun is inherently immoral, though I grant that's subjective. But then so is all morality, so you could apply your "nothing inherently immoral" shlock onto anything.

But you're not protesting "all life." You're specifically protesting elephants. Likewise, eating meat is also a matter of enjoyment. After all, there are plenty of non-meat options available. Or are you only being immoral if you enjoy eating meat? If you don't enjoy the meat, are you being moral?

However, despite your pretense to the contrary, there's no great argument suggesting that sport hunting is immoral on the absolute level as murder, theft, etc.
---

Absolutely.

I'm not even against hunting, but just hunt deer or pheasant, maybe ducks idk. There are plenty of things that taste great that you can hunt. Nobody needs to be hunting exotic or endangered animals.
---

Poaching is obviously evil.

But there are beneficial reasons to hunt elephants within legal channels. Ignoring the monetary benefit to local communities and preserves, like any herd/pack animal, there exist situations in which a male is no longer able to produce offspring but still prevents younger males from being able to do so. In this case, it's better to shoot the old male elephant to allow the younger males to reproduce.

However in my mind, I don't see any real difference between elephants or any other animal that's being hunted with the exception of it's 'endangeredness'. If there weren't so few elephants left in the world, I would say go ahead and hunt an elephant the same as you would hunt a bear or an elk.
---

depends on two things to me. are they endangered? and are they eating it? hunting endangered animals is wrong and I find "trophy hunting" to be wrong unless you are at least donating the meat to say a homeless shelter.
---

Hunting any animal for sport is wrong and disgusting to me. Finding enjoyment in killing something is awful.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Hunting any animal for sport is wrong and disgusting to me. Finding enjoyment in killing something is awful.

I could see taking pride in it maybe as in proud of their "skill". but as I posted above you i'd want them at least donating the meat to the needy if they don't want themselves.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

Hunting any animal for sport is wrong and disgusting to me. Finding enjoyment in killing something is awful.

I could see taking pride in it maybe as in proud of their "skill". but as I posted above you i'd want them at least donating the meat to the needy if they don't want themselves.

If they used a gun there was no skill, all they did was murder something that was just trying to live

MICHALECOLE posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

Hunting any animal for sport is wrong and disgusting to me. Finding enjoyment in killing something is awful.

I could see taking pride in it maybe as in proud of their "skill". but as I posted above you i'd want them at least donating the meat to the needy if they don't want themselves.

If they used a gun there was no skill, all they did was murder something that was just trying to live

there is a skill if you actually track the game instead of sit up in a tree. and aiming a gun isn't as easy as people think. some are naturally good others need practice. also not everyone hunts with a gun where I live anyways turkey is generally hunted with a bow.

also knowledge of where the "bread basket" is, is something worth mentioning. though if I where a hunter i'd honestly prefer to go for a headshot if I felt I had the skill to do it. i'd rather it be a instant kill

like when I took hunter safety in school I remember having to study where on a turkey and deer you'd want to shoot. with turkey it was very specific if I recall correctly
---

MICHALECOLE posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

Hunting any animal for sport is wrong and disgusting to me. Finding enjoyment in killing something is awful.

I could see taking pride in it maybe as in proud of their "skill". but as I posted above you i'd want them at least donating the meat to the needy if they don't want themselves.

If they used a gun there was no skill, all they did was murder something that was just trying to live

What if I hide in the tree and ninja style plunge a sword into their head hmmm?
---

Id still think you were doing something awful, but I think it would take more skill

i've always wanted to go hunting but i'd actually eat what I kill. never had full on deer meat before (once I had it but it was ground, and mixed up with ground beef) so if I didn't like the taste i'd likely go to turkey hunting as I do know I like turkey. I just don't know how good I would be with a bow never shot one other than one time screwing around with a home made one a friend made with a random stick he found and shoe lace. (surprisingly it worked, but I can't attest to how accurate it was compared to a real bow)
---

Ideally when you hunt for food you want a heart or at least a lung shot. You want the animal out quickly so the Adrenalin doesn't spoil the meat.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

Ideally when you hunt for food you want a heart or at least a lung shot. You want the animal out quickly so the Adrenalin doesn't spoil the meat.

why not head shot though if you are confident you could make that shot? not many people eat the brains anyways.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

Ideally when you hunt for food you want a heart or at least a lung shot. You want the animal out quickly so the Adrenalin doesn't spoil the meat.

why not head shot though if you are confident you could make that shot? not many people eat the brains anyways.

Compare a human skull to that of a deer. The human skull is dominated by the brain, so a shot to the head is likely to penetrate the cranium and brain.

On the other hand, a deer brain is very small compared to the skull and presents a very small target. Furthermore there are bony stuctures which might deflect away a bullet or arrow. See this picture of a fallow deer skull.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/m2xyk.jpg

Generally, large muscles need large anchor points, so an animal with strong neck muscles or strong jaw muscles will often have bony lumps and flanges on its skull (e.g. the sagital crest on a gorilla skull).

A sagittal crest is a ridge of bone running lengthwise along the midline of the top of the skull (at the sagittal suture) of many mammalian and reptilian skulls, among others.

In contrast, a deflected shot off a rib is still likely to go on and penetrate heart or lungs. And a big animal like a deer is going to need a big heart and big lungs to oxygenate such a large body.

Simply put a head shot is a high risk shot. Heart and lungs is a guaranteed kill. A deer's brain is about the size of a fist, which means most of what is in a deer's head is not brain. Hitting something that small from a distance is a tough shot for even a good marksman.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

Ideally when you hunt for food you want a heart or at least a lung shot. You want the animal out quickly so the Adrenalin doesn't spoil the meat.

why not head shot though if you are confident you could make that shot? not many people eat the brains anyways.

Compare a human skull to that of a deer. The human skull is dominated by the brain, so a shot to the head is likely to penetrate the cranium and brain.

On the other hand, a deer brain is very small compared to the skull and presents a very small target. Furthermore there are bony stuctures which might deflect away a bullet or arrow. See this picture of a fallow deer skull.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/m2xyk.jpg

Generally, large muscles need large anchor points, so an animal with strong neck muscles or strong jaw muscles will often have bony lumps and flanges on its skull (e.g. the sagital crest on a gorilla skull).

A sagittal crest is a ridge of bone running lengthwise along the midline of the top of the skull (at the sagittal suture) of many mammalian and reptilian skulls, among others.

In contrast, a deflected shot off a rib is still likely to go on and penetrate heart or lungs. And a big animal like a deer is going to need a big heart and big lungs to oxygenate such a large body.

Simply put a head shot is a high risk shot. Heart and lungs is a guaranteed kill. A deer's brain is about the size of a fist, which means most of what is in a deer's head is not brain. Hitting something that small from a distance is a tough shot for even a good marksman.

thanks for the answer first person ever to ever give me a legit sounding answer other than it being a smaller target and harder to hit.

my ex step father hunted deer with a fucking revolver though and his excuse was rifle bullets tear through them like paper and they get to run, where as the 357 knocked them down. wonder if he was using hollow points. if so that seems like it would be wasting some meat.
---

He probably wasn't that great of a shot or didn't use the mushrooming bullets. But people do hunt with revolvers though. Usually for the extra challenge or something different.

I've hunted two seasons using a .54 caliber Hawken rifle. It was quiet the experience but you need a lot of patience for it.
---

Yes, find an animal that isn't in danger of extinction.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

He probably wasn't that great of a shot or didn't use the mushrooming bullets. But people do hunt with revolvers though. Usually for the extra challenge or something different.

I've hunted two seasons using a .54 caliber Hawken rifle. It was quiet the experience but you need a lot of patience for it.

if you weren't that great of a shot though why go with a revolver? from almost everyone i've talked to, a rifle is much easier to hit your target with. especially in my mom's account. she has trained with guns most of her life due to her job, and she always told me, if you feel like you got good aim with a handgun a rifle will make you feel like a god. but she has very good aim to be honest.
---

Elephants are awesome creatures.
I want them to stay around for as long as possible.
---