But you’re not permitted to do so, right? She obviously was (if we’re accepting the narrative that the villagers needed HER to do this because she was permitted and they were not).
So, no, your example still doesn’t hold. She’s obviously defending her decision by talking about what an exceptional circumstance it was and how, under normal circumstances, she would have never done such a thing. You honestly think her intended defense was “Well, it wasn’t on my list…”?
I think maybe your long division problems have less to do with the age of your audience and more to do with your failure to understand the problems yourself.
Which really doesn’t make any sense, considering the wide range of animals she has killed in the past. Why would giraffes in particular be on her “2 Kute 2 Kill” list?
Yes. Killing bald eagles isn’t allowed when hunting turkeys.
I can’t believe I just needed to seriously answer that question.
Obviously, if there was a glitch in the law or something and killing bald eagles becomes legal in between now and may I still “wouldn’t dream of killing one”.
Does this make me a hypocrite? Because that was your original, moronic point. Picking and choosing to kill certain animals and not others is hypocritical. This viewpoint is mind numbing in how stupid it is and rather than flailing about trying to justify it you should just retract. Or give up and slink away, which is the more likely option.
I can’t believe you offered it as an equivalent situation then knowing that they weren’t remotely similar. Boy, you’re terrible at this.
Erm, no. My point was this it’s NOT hypocritical and she was no more a hypocrite for for thinking “I shouldn’t kill giraffes” while killing goats than I am for thinking “I shouldn’t kill bunnies” while eating a cow. However, much of this thread revolves around the whole “But you EAT COWS so how dare you judge someone for killing giraffes!”
My point, which seems to have gone completely over your head is that the argument that keeps coming up (“But you eat cows…”) should be equally applied to this woman for valuing giraffes. Which, I had hoped, would make people understand how stupid the “But you eat cows…” argument was. Instead it just got your feathers all ruffled up as you failed to understand it at all.
As I said, I don’t think the fault lies with the 2 year old when you can’t explain things to them.
Beats me. Either she has some sort of value system she applies towards which animals deserve to get an arrow through the neck or else she just lied about her reluctance to kill giraffes.
I didn’t think you had the phrasing right, so I went back and checked the article from the OP.
Here’s what she said:
She doesn’t say her reasoning. Maybe she didn’t have a Giraffe permit. Maybe she didn’t want to hunt giraffe because they are at risk of being endangered. Maybe she thinks they are cute, as you are claiming.
Who knows?
Do those of you who are assigning all kinds of motives to her have any evidence of your claims? Why do you think she didn’t plan on hunting giraffe on this trip because of "cute"ness or “more deserving to stay alive”?
Where are you getting this from? Are you just making it up?
In any case, we’ve got no evidence at all that she’s a hypocrite for hunting one animal and not another and changing her mind about it. It’s not at all different then the choices most hunters make every day they step into the field.
If she didn’t have a giraffe permit, she was poaching. She has killed lions so if the criteria is “at risk of being endangered” then she applies it very unevenly.
But, again, I don’t think it makes her a hypocrite. I think it makes people who WERE using the hypocrite argument foolish. You just didn’t understand what I was saying.
Bolding mine. Again, here’s the issue. Where’s the evidence that she “values giraffes”?
Maybe it exists and I just haven’t seen it. Maybe there’s a link or something with it buried in this thread. But you seem to be just making it up. That’s what I’m taking issue with.
I’ve been fishing all my life, and I’ve hunted deer and ducks. I don’t do it regularly, but I don’t have any qualms about killing animals. But part of that satisfaction from hunting is knowing you did a difficult thing well.
She didn’t do that. Watch the video that was linked earlier. The trackers had spent a couple of days scouting the animal, and they worked with the guide to figure out the most promising locations. She even says something like “finally they got me a 30 yard shot.” She made a difficult shot, probably made more difficult by adrenaline… but she didn’t hunt the giraffe. She just killed it.
She obviously obtained a permit at some point. Nobody has accused her of poaching that I’m aware of.
But she probably didn’t have one going into the trip, since she wasn’t initially planning on hunting giraffe.
I would guess based on the story that she purchased the permit or added it on when the opportunity presented itself. But it’s possible that she had one the whole time as part of a packaged hunt that was purchased.
It’s tiresome explaining hunting to someone who has:
Absolutely no idea what they’re talking about and,
Insists that they know everything about the topic, up to and including what’s in the heads of hunters that they don’t know and have no evidence to back up.
is just absolute bullshit she made up after the fact to cover her ass. That supposed former attitude just doesn’t jibe with the pose she takes with the animal after she killed it, in mu opinion.
Sure. Maybe you have a vested interest in trying fifteen different ways to make what she said “But we don’t KNOW that she wouldn’t kill a giraffe…”
Anyway, it seems that Ms. Francis is now trying to make this all about what a big meanie-poopie-head Gervais is for calling her out. Also, the hints of how it must be all about sexism in there because, hey, why not play every card in your deck.
And, of course, if people act poorly it’s all Gervais’s fault for daring to bring it to the public’s attention.
Thanks. I’m struck by how many hunters pretend that this person had some unique skill that mere mortals couldn’t possibly do. She walked up to a giraffe that appeared to not give a shit that she was there, and she shot it in the neck. Most of us could do that, and choose not to.
I have a buddy who showed me his pictures from an African safari of giraffes and lions sitting right next to their car with little concern for their proximity to humans. Shooting them in the face wouldn’t require any more skill than shooting them with a camera.
People are weird about morality when it comes to animals. They draw silly lines based on completely arbitrary cultural norms, but they defend those arbitrary lines viciously because what we eat is so intimate and personal. It’s OK to eat a cow, but not a horse (in this country). It’s OK to kill a turkey because it is tastier than tofu and beans and it’s fun to eat tasty things, but it’s not OK (to some) to kill a deer just because it’s fun to sit in the forest and hunt. It’s legal to make pigs live in tiny cages so filled with shit that even the antibiotics won’t cure all their pus-filled wounds in order to make bacon a little cheaper, but its illegal to do the same thing to dogs to make puppies a little cheaper. Many vegans are OK with intentionally killing thousands of rodents in order to grow crops, but object to using honey because the bees aren’t paid for their labor.
None of it makes any sense because none of it is built on consistent logic.
First of all, you misheard that quote. I just listed to the video. She says “Finally, he (the Bull Giraffe) gave me a 30 yard shot.” She was talking the way all hunters talk about the animal finally giving you an opportunity.
She says in the video they hunted the giraffe for two days. She used a bow, and killed it with one shot. She talks on the video about the narrow target window between the shoulder blades.
Sure, she had guides that tracked it. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t hunt it.
Is it your opinion that any guided hunt isn’t true hunting and is just “killing”?
The whole thing is stinks of “Reality” TV fabrication. The producers of the show decided that what would really bring in viewers would be to have her kill a really big animal with her bow. Elephants, and Rhino’s are out due to the problems with poaching, hippos just don’t quite have the right level of pinache. But we might be able to manage a giraffe. To help sell it to the public, they come back with the most tear jerking contrived justification that the can to hide the fact that the real reason this animal had to die was that killing it would be a spectacle that would bring in viewers. “TONIGHT AFTER THE BREAK SEE BECKY HUNT DOWN A 3500 POUND ANIMAL WITH JUST HER BOW AND HER WITS!!” The only question, is whether the justification was conceived before or after the whole thing blew up twitter.
As to the OP, I have no more or less contempt for Rebecca Francis than I do for any other reality TV star (which incidentally is a whole lot of contempt). She certainly doesn’t death threats. Still when thrust yourself out as a celebrity you have to accept the consequences. In that way her situation is totally different from that of Justine Sacco, who really didn’t deserve her life being torn apart.
No sound on my computer now, but I’ll watch the video again when I can. I believe you that I got the quote wrong, but I’m not sure it’ll change my opinion.
I couldn’t make a blanket statement about “any guided hunt,” because that covers a huge swath of ground. It might be a guy going out with you to talk about terrain, water, and wind directions; it might be a guy who sets you up in a blind and then puts out a salt lick and scatters some corn around. Even if there was no bait, this one seems a lot more like the latter than the former.
