Is Killing Poachers Acceptable to Preserve a Species?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
Sure. I would vote in favor of killing all poachers AND hunters who kill innocent animals for no reason. Except for the fact they are trying to compensate for having a small dick. I mean, going out with a high-powered rifle and killing a deer is weak and lame enough as it is. But doing it out of season should be an offense worthy of the death penalty. We home sapiens are no better than any other species of animals. SO the poachers and hunters are cold blooded murderers. Period. Never meant a hunter who wasn't half a fag and couldn't satisfy his woman in the bedroom. Hence the hostility and the need to over-compensate by buying a rifle in direct inverse proportion to his wee-wee. And then killing an innocent and beautiful animal as dead as his libido is. LOL. Wankers. all of them. Side: Yes
1
point
"I mean, going out with a high-powered rifle and killing a deer is weak and lame enough as it is. But doing it out of season should be an offense worthy of the death penalty. We home sapiens are no better than any other species of animals. SO the poachers and hunters are cold blooded murderers. Period." How do your college studies show hunters are cold blooded murderers ? Why do states have hunting seasons according to your college studies ? Side: No
"Sure. I would vote in favor of killing all poachers AND hunters who kill innocent animals for no reason. Except for the fact they are trying to compensate for having a "small dick". Your studying penis size of a hunter but yet you say their half a fag ? What might that make you there college student ? Side: No
We study many physiological aspects of homo sapiens: brain size; vestigial traits; musculature and orthopedic structure. Also reproductive systems. So why not penis size? LOL This is but one of our tools for analyzing and measuring and discerning how we fit into the Grand Scheme of Things. Sexual preferences have nothing to do with it. Side: Yes
How can I support both life AND death? Easy. The animals I support are innocent. While the homo sapiens who groundlessly believe they are a superior species and thus entitled to kill other, lesser species are NOT innocent, but rather guilty of the crime of cold blooded murder with malice aforethought. Ergo, Not deserving of life, but rather, of the reciprical form of punishment they inflict upon their prey. Is that clear enough for you? Thanks. Side: Yes
No...I never said that ALL Wildlife Management Agencies are wankers. Or that some of their ideas and management systems are not viable and efficient. But I believe some of them are injurious due to mis-information and their part. This is not always their fault. Most of them have good intentions. It's just that some of them don't fully grasp the notion that, by and large, Mother Nature is usually a self-regulating system and can do just fine without our interventions. Some of them believe they are do-gooders and for example, might try to intervene so as to protect an endangered species. But most of these species would not be endangered in the first place if it weren't for homo sapiens and their blight upon this planet. Always remember that we and our so-called Wildlife Management Systems, as well as these Agencies have been around for only a blink of an eye, compared to how long Nature and the Earth have been here. It's like, if the Earth's History were a 24-hour day and began last night at midnight, we only got here a few seconds before midnight tonight. So all was just fine, unfolding as it should, until just a few seconds ago, when we came on the scene and did so much damage that we felt we needed to correct it. This is hubris. We give our selves far too much credit. And often do not realize we are but one species of animal on this planet. Blame our over-sized brains. And egos. LOL Side: Yes
1
point
I have been contemplating this issue all day, and I find that I am unable to bring my divided feelings to an acceptable medium. Humans who actively damage an already fragile and dwindling population are just about the lowest of the low. Over the past 50,000 years or so, Homo sapiens has violently eradicated species after species: this world would be a much more diverse place had humans never evolved. That said, humans have evolved to what is essentially the top niche on this planet, and thus their responsibilities are twofold: 1) to protect themselves Many species pose a threat to humans; their eradication greatly preserves human life. Considering that humans are (arguably?) the most advanced species, an individual human life can be said to be of more value than an individual, say, Murmeltier. 2) to protect the planet Humans will not be masters of their domain for eternity. Just as many species have preceded us, so too shall others succeed us: that is, unless we destroy them/their environment. At the very least, the lovely Tardigrada ought to outlive us, and personally I am rooting for their success in world domination. To ignore the well-being of the planet is not just to ignore the well-being of humanity, but of sentience. To the extent of human knowledge, our planet is alone in the universe in supporting sentient life: until we determine otherwise, we are morally obligated to protect not just humanity but that spark which gives humanity its benefit: sentience. Indeed, I would say that the preservation of the future of sentience outweighs the preservation of humanity, for the former may be able to exist without the other, but a human without sentience is no human at all. Being that we as a species are quite myopic, fully unable to grasp the consequences of our most extreme actions so far as 24 hours in advance, we could hardly be blamed for not seeing the picture on a scale of the millions of years. However, it is for precisely this reason that we must protect other species. If a million humans die, truly, in the scheme of this world, such a loss would be barely noteworthy. However, due to human activities, countless species have gone extinct and are going extinct: species which, it very well may be, would otherwise succeed us. Humans are not going to last forever: destroying species all around the world may give us a temporary, ephemeral edge, but existentially, I do not consider humans to be all that grand. What is important is that spark of sentience. The protection of a species is not merely the elongation of the lifespan of an otherwise good-as-dead population, but the protection of life as we know it. To focus solely on human life is to arrogantly assume that humans are all that matter: without us, whatever happens is irrelevant. This is a dangerous and singularly haughty idea: it is our responsibility as a species to be sure that we leave this planet relatively as we found it (or rather, as it found us) so that, while we may not reign forever, at least something will continue to call our planet home and hopefully, with enough time, develop their own civilization. It is for this reason that I have chosen this side in the debate. A human life is insignificant, whereas a species is the product of an individualized evolution spanning countless millions of years. To disregard - as humans are so apt to do - everything but ourselves, we are setting our home up for annihilation. Side: Yes
1
point
|
1
point
No but it is acceptable to kill a poacher that is trying to kill an animal that is your property. I don't see what the big deal is about saving species. Species have been going extinct for millions of years. It's only important if their disappearance will impact us through our food supply or some other way. I would give up 10 large African mammal species to protect our honeybees. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Imagine a party of heavily armed men facing life-imprisonment if they are captured. It is in their best interest to not be caught. In such a case, they will do what they must to avoid capture. As the soldiers interviewed for the BBC article said: the poachers have no more to lose by shooting at the police than the animals, and thus if they do not incapacitate the poachers, they themselves can expect to be incapacitated. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
This is the total hypocrisy of many on the Left. The majority of people on the Left would abolish the death penalty but if a precious animal is killed illegally, some in their midsts would scream HANG EM HIGH! Have you ever wondered why Peta Groups never say a thing about the right of life for unborn Babies? Animals are more important to them than an innocent human life. That tells me all I need to know about a group with such misplaced compassion and misplaced priorities. Side: No
1
point
Since you need to be reminded about this every time: Not everyone shares your opinions on when life begins. By ignoring that, you just come across as tone deaf. Those who believe a zygote is not a human life are more likely to be okay with abortion. Those who don't, aren't. If you aren't willing to address that underlying issue, then you aren't willing to actually discuss abortion (as opposed to just screaming angrily at people, which is what you do most of the time). Side: Yes
|
