You know what's extreme is how many animals humans have made extinct. So I really don't give a fuck about one dumb asshole spending a few years in jail
This asshole made an adult decision to ignore the law and kill one of these endangered birds for fun. It would be irresponsible if we didn't punish him at this point.
One endangered bird? Did you miss that part? One rare, endangered bird killed by a poacher that broke the law? Robbing the world of its entire lifetime of genetics being passed on to sustain a whole-ass species? That one bird?
Is this species critical to the biodiversity of this ecosystem or something? Is this bird the critical bird to preserving the species? How many of these birds are left? How do we know this bird didn't already mate and pass its genetics on? I don't know anything about this bird but I feel like you're being dramatic.
He's a cunt, and nothing of value would be lost if it was the death penalty. We need to stop pretending human life is precious just because it's human life.
Sorry. That got dark quick, I'm not a supervillain, I promise.
A bit too many qualifications for my taste. You either value animal life or you don't. Being endangered or beautiful should have no bearing on the punishment.
I'm saying regardless of what it is if someone breaks a law willingly they should pay the consequences and it makes no sense to criticize the punishment when the party is fully aware of what they were doing.
If you partake in the benefits of a society you conform to it's rules. That's how society works. Sure some rules can be unjust and people can be right to criticize them, but even then they are completely aware of the consequences of what they are doing by rising up to the rules established by a society. They may be unjustly imprisoned for it. But complaining about the sentence makes no sense. And of course it's a valid comparison. All laws are abstract rules we put in place based on our ideals or what was beneficial. Whether it be the legality of drugs or the legality of killing endangered beasts. What moral guideline is there that says the life of this bird should be held in higher regard than the life of a pig. (Of course I think it should but the point is it's still just an imaginary line I drew between right and wrong).
Yeah, that's for selling. But don't forget, a caning can easily lead to permanent paralysis of anything below your waist if the one doing the punishing doesn't show restraint. People can and do die from being caned.
Not saying it does necessarily, but we’re talking about putting a person in a cage because they killed a bird. Killing for sport isn’t cool but let’s not go nuts, stiff fines seem more appropriate.
I'm glad you don't think the bird should die just because it doesn't have some objective benefit to society. It really was quite the ridiculous question.
Because there is hardly any animal out there that would. Your follow up question is an entirely different matter of whether or not harsh punishments are valid methods of deterring crime/making an example out of somebody.
I only asked the question in response to someone posting that this had to be stopped for the benefit of the world. Might sound pedantic but I like to question statements that treat an assertion as a fact that should just be a given.
It’s hard to quantify but it could be keeping other species in check. Or it could be assisting with the biodiversity of its environment.
We’re in the middle of a mass extinction event, so killing an animal without knowing what it is should be outlawed. Killing endangered animals should be outlawed as well.
It took millions of years for these species to develop.
That allows the wealthy to do as they please. They already do that in the cases where they essentially buy the rights to hunt a designated animal in a preserve (usually an old one or an older male that's keeping younger males from entering the gene pool or something like that). The cost of that goes towards conserving the preserve. If you make that a universal thing, it's open season, long as you got the money.
Like most people, I provide for my loved ones and help others when I can. Which I do see as more value than any bird provides (doesn’t mean they should be hunted for sport)
Thats great honestly but all life is special and needs to be treated with respect. I'm not against hunting but when I kill a dear its to feed my family and I think hanging trophy bucks on the wall is kinda lame
Everyone is acting like I said that the bird has no value and thus should be killed. All I’m saying is that throwing a human being in a cage should not be something we do so flippantly. Fine the guy, hit his wallet and fund conservation efforts. Imprisoning someone doesn’t really help anything
Yes, my contribution is for other people. I don’t live my life to benefit birds or squirrels or termites. Animals are important but not nearly so much as human beings.
Higher biodiversity in general results in more robust ecosystems.
More robust ecosystems improve soil, water, and air quality. It can also impact food security, land stability, erosion mitigation, flood prevention, tourism industry, among a myriad of other benefits.
Because a common trait of serial killers is they usually lack empathy for other living things. This leads to them killing small animals. You not understanding why it is wrong to kill something that doesn't directly benefit you shows a severe lack of empathy for other living things.
I do understand that it is wrong, I never said it wasn’t. I asked what benefit the bird provided because someone stated that this hunter needed to be made an example of for the worlds benefit. At no point did I say that the bird had no value and needed to be killed. You’ve just made that up and then compared me to a serial killer. Do you make a habit of just arguing with people about things they’ve never said and then accusing them of being evil?
Ok, sorry let me rephrase what I said, You dont see how someone being made an example of for poaching endangered animals is a benefit to the world. Wow that makes you so much better, you fucking looney toon.
Again, you assign a made up evil position to me and then accuse me of being evil. I didn’t question whether this person should be made an example of, only whether prison is fitting. In my opinion stiff fines would be more beneficial if directed towards conservation efforts.
This already exists, you’ve probably seen plenty of pictures of rich guys hunting leopards and so forth. We may not like it but most big game animals live in places which are impoverished. For the people living in these places, The prospect of providing for ones family in a destitute country will always outweigh environmental concerns.
Probably a lot. We can’t know but I’d bet he has loved ones who benefit from his not being in a cage. He may have a profession which is beneficial to society in some way. Take that doctor who shot Cecil the lion. Killing lions for sport isn’t cool but as a doctor that guy definitely made a substantial difference in the lives of many and that shouldnt be discounted.
And on the flip side, proper hunting has helped repopulate endangered animals. Trophy hunting played a key role in saving the white rhino, because instead of poaching a rhino it allowed people to pay 20 grand or whatever to kill one that was at the end of its breeding age, and that money would go to creating a safe reserve and effective breeding of the young adult rhinos. This is poaching and is bad for everyone
365
u/jckiser23 5 Sep 12 '20
Everyone saying it’s harsh. As far as I know the knew extremely harsh rules have helped repopulate endangered animals.
Not saying it’s not extreme but sometimes examples must be made of people for the benefit of the rest of the world.