With regard to respecting what you’ve killed, it comes down to demonstrating to your peers, and reinforcing within yourself, respect for the life and role of that which you haven’t yet killed. It’s a broader gesture than the carcass. It matters.
As for the OP, I don’t know enough about the huntress’ motives & methods to judge her. Some hunters are noble, others despicable, most are somewhere in between I expect.
To whom?
I tend to think that in matters of ethics, gestures are insignificant compared to consequential actions. Thus the quote earlier about the Walrus, who choked and sobbed as he sorted out the largest oysters to eat.
If you’re gonna hunt giraffes, that’s either an okay thing to do or it’s a terrible thing to do, and I can see each view and respect each view. But whether it’s okay or terrible doesn’t depend on your facial expression afterward or on any other gesture, and to the extent it depends on your motives (and it does, absolutely), one kind of “because killing the animal allows me to gain pleasure” is ethically indistinguishable from another.
There were so many points there I don’t even know where to begin now. As a summation I would say I was poking fun at your (and others) simplistic views on ethics, animal welfare, environmentalism, wildlife conservation and moral hypocrisy.
And while the ethics of this woman are relevant, our conversation was not just about a sickly old giraffe.
never mind.
You mean my replies to your proxy Miller, who picked up where you left off, and which I made after your erroneous post about my dishonesty? I’ll “knock it off” when you and your flying monkey friends stop attacking me with the same bullshit accusations.
Still waiting for you to concede your mistake and mis-characterization about how I paraphrased your post, assuming you still have any integrity at all.
The comment about what Andros said was completely forthright, and it mirrors my earlier comment about the same thing, the one you also inexplicably mis-characterized as dishonest:
You needed to derail me with ridiculous accusations and insults after that, and why? Because you can’t stand the thought that someone else might disagree with your opinion? (as if that matters, in a thread about personal feelings) Or is it that you just can’t stand me, for reasons you won’t admit, because they’re too petty. Your inexplicable and unwarranted enmity towards me is pretty blatant at this point, and it’s clouding your judgment.
Let me participate without the well poisoning, and my having to fend off these continual attacks. Put me on ignore if that’s what it takes, or Pit me already, if you still really believe my posts are that egregious.
Ooh, I have a proxy, and he’s a flying monkey! Keen.
One of those replies was after my correct post about your dishonesty. The other was before.
I invite you, then, to hold your breath, because while I have more integrity in my left eyebrow than you’ve got in your entire worldview, I was neither mistaken nor dishonest.
To be entirely clear: I’ve disagreed with others here in a civil, respectful manner. I’ve described why I find you to be a twerp, in an incivil, forthright manner. Others have agreed that you’re acting as a twerp in the manner I described. My dislike of you is certainly blatant, but it’s explicable and warranted.
Now come, my flying monkey friends. Let’s away!
I have no idea what anyone is talking about.
Were all of you married to Camille at some point?
Like, can someone just show me the first post where she is to have done something offensive? I can’t find it.
Welcome to the internet
If you really care, it went like this:
I responded in Pit fashion to say I wasn’t missing the point, I was ignoring a dumb point. So far, so good. I explained why I thought it was a dumb point. I still do. But if she’d just responded in kind, or decided to be civil (which she was under no obligation to do, natch, since I’d just called her point dumb), I would’ve been fine.
Instead, we had:
Once she’s decided to go to condescending passive-aggressive psychoanalysis like this, I’m not particularly interested in carrying on in anything like a civil exchange with her.
She will likely come in with half a page of explanation of why it’s not passive-aggressive or condescending, in the process engaging in more passive-aggressive condescension. It makes her less interesting to talk with than folks like Pedro, who, while sticking to the same dumb point, is at least more interesting about it.
Okay, thanks for showing me what you’re talking about.
You’ve got to keep up better, Frylock.
You see, camille is a self-professed vegetarian and lover of all creatures great and small.
YET!, She allegedly has a house full of lampshades made entirely from kitten skins and eats puppy tartare with glee.
On the other hand, Left Hand of Dorkness is a [sup]air quote[/sup]respected arbiter of truth and justice[sup]air quote[/sup]…plus, he has a big time crush on camille.
…you are over-reacting in comical fashion to pretty mild stuff. And you’ve been doing it for days. If you aren’t interested in anything like a civil exchange with her the easiest option is to ignore her. I had an exchange earlier in this thread where it became obvious we were never going to see eye-to-eye, so I simply disengaged. And I think that its best that you do that here. Because I can’t for the life of me see why you are so disproportionately angry over Camille’s pretty mild posts when I can pull out worse examples in this thread and this board.
This is hardly the whole story.
The population is composed of nine subspecies that rarely interbreed in the wild, even when sharing their range. So instead of one population of 80,000, we’re really talking about nine populations, some which number in the hundreds. Extensive population genetic structure in the giraffe - PMC
Their numbers as a whole species have declined from 140,000 in the late 1990s to that 80,000 estimate today. In pre-historic times giraffe inhabited most of sub-Saharan Africa but now they’ve been restricted to mostly discontinuous ranges.
Habitat loss is going to continue and their numbers are going to continue to decline. They’re certainly pre-endangered even if you don’t care about the reproductive isolation between subspecies.
You jerk. Don’t imply I belong to that dweeb’s team.
Everyone ignore that idiot and let the party go on.
I’ll distract him meanwhile.
ToNT: Boobies. Your turn.
Meh. Fair enough. It’s a specific brand of behavior that gets up my nose. Far harsher insults aren’t really a problem in the same way. If that’s an overreaction, goddammit, it’s MY overreaction.
You’re so upset about this statement:
that you’re willing to admit that you’re overreacting. It’s interesting that you don’t agree that ‘An emotional, physiological response is independent of intelligence.’
At the same time, you’re saying that people should be rational and not get upset over someone shooting and killing a giraffe and smiling over its dead body.
Huh.
I’m far more upset over ISIS and other nutjobs smiling over dead human bodies But no pit thread about that.
Yeah, but nobody is shaming them on twitter, that’s the important thing here.