Are there any real moral arguments against poaching that a meat-eating world can impose?
The amount of cows, chickens and pigs we kill just for a tasty meal is staggeringly high, compared to the amount of "majestic beasts" like elephants and lions getting killed for furs and ivory.
Not to mention that the people who do these poachings are usually piss-poor and really need that money, compared to westerners living in grandiose conditions that seem utopian for the average African or Chinese.
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
The only thing bad with poaching is the risk of hurting shriking populations of endangered species.
If elephants reproduced as fast as rats no one would seriously care
>NOOOOOOOOO ALL ANIMALS HAVE EQUAL VALUE
>AN ELEPHANT = A COW = AN ANT
Elephants are more intelligent than livestock
Same argument that can be made towards races
>muh westerners r ebil
Oh sweetie….
>the people who do these poachings are usually piss-poor and really need that money
Get a job, moron.
>Cows are exactly as endangered as wild rhinos
Seems the vegan diet really does make you a fricking moron.
We're not running out of chickens.
That's the fricking difference.
The people who base their reasoning on the fact that elephants are endangered presumably wouldn't have an issue with elephant farming programs where elephants would be reared for meat and other products?
We don't like seeing intelligent wild animals like elephants suffer but don't care about mindless domestic farm creatures which are essentially plants that happen to have animal tissue.
>mindless domestic farm creatures
Pigs would like a word with you
Unironically no. If it were possible, there is no moral issue with that. However we live in the real world where farming an animal as huge and long lived as elephants for meat is prohibitively expensive and redundant. So no, I'm not 'for' it bexause it's a stupid fricking idea.
>we kill these specific animals, that we breed ourselves, for sustenance
>therefore killing any animal for any reason is okay
Off yourself
>hipocrasy is... le good!
Unless you are a vegetarian and do not wear leather then you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to what animals should or should not be killed for food or other products.
It's like the morons that eat bacon but complain about koreans eating the heckin pupperinos.
Killing chickens we breed in a farm doesn't impact their population in the wild and doesn't frick over countless other species that also need them for food or to keep their numbers in check, have a nice day moron esl
Why does it matter if an animal goes extinct? Name ten of the "countless" species that need elephants for food or to keep their numbers in check, then explain why each species matters in the grand scheme of things.
Also answer this guy
without appealing to muh intelligence, unless of course you don't eat pig meat and only eat dumb animals (such as yourself)
Elephants are needed in the forests and vegetation zones as "gardeners". They have big problems in regions where elephants are extinct.
>grandiose conditions that seem utopian for the average African or Chinese
its their fault for being extremely overpopulated
This thread is shit beyond salvation, so I'll just say I think it's hypocritical when anons complain about normies using "u r virgin" as an argument... and then go ahead and use "u r womyn" or "u r troony" as an argument.
>"u r virgin"
Not an argument.
>"u r womyn" or "u r troony"
These are good arguments though because women are all born congenitally moronic and troons are insane degenerates.
>all womyn are moronic!
And your mother?
That's right, now stfu.
>And your mother?
Yes.
Why so? Did she beat you or something or are you just being a contrarian edgelord?
Richard Leaky had the only moral argument against poachers. Shoot them in the fricking head and burn the ivory.
A shame that Dian Fossey is no longer under us
She would play some nice fetish games with you
Do you like scat?
WTF?
good and honest people
The fact that war wasn't declared on both africa and china for this is a show of the weakness of modern "conservationists". Kill poachers wherever you find them. Force their children to eat their flesh.
That's a very nice fanfiction Eugene!
>You have views I don't like
>I can't argue with them
>I'm going to talk like you're a loser and just ignore everything you say
You argue like the fat b***h I fricked for all of junior year, bro.
>>I'm going to talk to you like you're a loser
Because you are one, fatty. You're posting on Wauf just like the rest of us, you didn't bully jack-shit.
>inb4 "proejeqshin!1!1!1" or some other lousy deflect, also
Is me before you go "s-s-saemphag!" like it's a form of leverage
>you are right so I’ll just pretend ur ugly
take the L woman.
>everyone who I argue with is a woman!
Thanks for conceding schizo. I wonder when you'll next have another one of those meltdowns where you spam the thread with soijaks spouting deranged strawman nonsense before you inevitably get banned again.
I don't know what the frick you two have been arguing about and I don't give a shit because it's almost certainly something stupid, but (You) ARE a woman and you're the worst poster in this board's history. You are singlehandedly responsible for every low quality shit trend on this board and your husband's concern I would track him down didn't make sense until I realized there were two of you and you're the actual problem.
Look honey! It's having an autistic meltdown!
He should crate you during the day.
Very ironic coming from an autistic. Are you projecting what your tard wrangler does to you onto me?
Honey, you're looking tired. You should really take better care of yourself.
"You're looking tired"? That's literally all you can come up with? Kek! Back to your cagie, autismo.
Oh honey, are those new wrinkles? You need to take better care of your skin.
i dont know whats sadder, your rhetorical skills or the fact that you can't believe Wauf users would get kicked out of school for attacking nerds, when this is the website for hating nerds.
i didnt hear this gif tourist/you hate animals shit until 2020ish. the one saying it is a tourist himself.
the vegan paradigm is aggressively delusional.
>when this is the website for hating nerds.
what
>2020
That was 3 years ago
I feel like if we cull the population we should start with people like you that sound like the biography of a violent murder convict lol
To the contrary that’s how you get a degenerating empire of docile freaks like amerika while people like me are all over superior countries like china.
May have jumped the shark a little on that last larp
We raise all the farm animals we kill, not take large chunks of population out of nature, disrupting the ecosystem
>"majestic beasts"
That's the reason. Domestic livestock exist to die. Wild animals (especially elephants) are just cooler and better than them and therefore deserve to be protected.
Some life is better than others, vegan.
the poaching of elephants and rhinos isn't for meat for starving locals to eat
it is to provide ingredients for moronic chinese herbal medicine concoctions most of which have to with impotency
>the poaching of elephants and rhinos isn't for meat for starving locals to eat
Why the frick does that matter?
>omg think of the hecking poor starving africarinos!
>well no it's not for meat its for making chink dick pills lolol
Why do you think moron?
They make money through poaching, they use that money to get out of extreme poverty. That's infinitely more morally righteous than your obese first world shit-covered ass eating a steak because "DUUUUUURRRR ITS JUST NATURE BRO!!""
I don't care about illiterate africans making money I care about elephants.
Oh boy now you pissed off the israelitess.
Frick off Chang, cry about your micro-dick somewhere else.
This.
And then when they get out of poverty they remain as violent, stupid, and amoral as they were for generations and nothing is gained but money. Machete money.
Pass. Not my people not my problem. Competition and suppressing your enemies is good for the species.
>they use that money to get out of extreme poverty
Which african countries became rich thanks to poaching?
Anyone that enters the middle class through poaching has a special place in hell reserved for them. Don't you fricking dare try to come to my fricking planet and spread the serpent's propaganda. Get ye back to the fricking void, perdite.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_boy_egg
Disgusting and whatnot, but those tea eggs in the see also section and the end actually look mighty fine. Will try preparing one later, see how it goes.
I'm not mad if someone kills elephants. I'm mad if they just take the tusks and that's it. If you hunt an animal you best eat it too. Use the entire beast, make its entire being serve utility to the rest of the food chain.
Also don't hunt endangered animals beyond sustainability. Otherwise you're literally limiting supply for humanity and that is moronic for the longevity of the planet's various ecosystems.
We have dominion over Earth but that also means being its conservationists.
>If you hunt an animal you best eat it too.
literally why
He literally explained why
>Also don't hunt endangered animals beyond sustainability
There's no such thing as sustainable hunting of endangered species.
I'm starting to believe that maybe all these shit bait threads really do come from one person. He got called out on switching from dino autism to cat v dog console wars, so now he's desperate. PETA/vegan shit always gets people riled up in righteous anger regardless of what their opinions are, so it's low-hanging fruit.
Yeah and you're probably the one making them. Fits your israeli character. Every single one of these shit threads is anti-Wauf and subversive.
You have to be staggeringly moronic to try argue that poaching of keystone species like elephants or whatever to the brink of extinction isn’t actually that bad
You're on a /gif/ tourist b8 thread, what did you expect?
>/gif/ tourist
Is this one of the paleoschiz keywords?
No, it's a "I can spot out a tourist 'hey guiys!1! i haet anymuls!1!' thread" keyword. Keep your dino autism in your own threads.
>Someone isn't vegan
>/GIF/ TOURSIT U HAET ANIMULS
Frick off PETA. I love nature, and animals as well as their deaths are part of nature. Farm animals were born to die and their deaths are nature. Humans evolved to eat meat and that is nature.
Remind me, where did monkey torture threads come from again? If you say anything other than /gif/ I'm gonna laugh at you.
What does that have to do with using the vegan (buddhist) moral paradigm or not
Torture is poor moral character under all systems including nihilism (not for personal reasons, because good/evil aren’t universal concepts, but for other people judging how dangerous you might be to them)
NO. The injustice this world has suffered DEMANS BLOOD. DEMANDS SUFFERING. There can be no fricking peace until the centuries of evil the rich childfricking demons of this planet have wrought gets shoved straight up their fricking c**ts until they explode. THEN and ONLY fricking then, when they are ash and forgotten can any peace be restored to this world.
You are schizophrenic. Start with yourself before you become the next wouldbe in the FBI’s kill streak.
Also thank you for outing yourself as a reddit/forum tourist
I don't use reddit. Sounds like nobody's using it lately.
What is morally wrong with torturing people who hurt you
Because we have cows and chickens and pigs for meat. There's no reason to deplete endangered wild animals for meat when meat is readily available.
But you already know fine well that meat is not why people poach. So why even make the argument?
What can an elephant actually do though? If you hug its hind legs it can't reach you with its truck, and its too sluggish to get away while you repeatedly pommel it from behind. If you stand to the side of its hind legs then it won't even be able to hit you with a back kick. If it raises its leg to perform a stomp then all you have to do is back off until it finishes its slam, then move back in to continue punching.
You should totally do that the next time you see an elephant, everyone will be so goddamn fricking impressed that you punched an elephant to death, you'll be a legend for EVER.
In fact, you should go find an elephant to punch RIGHT NOW, like what are you waiting for???, shit's so easy that you may as well get that sweet sweet glory this very instant.
Post better bait
Lurk more newbie
All hunting/fishing should be done responsively to preserve the species (like lobster fishing). Not even for a greeny reason but why would you delete the species that gives you so much money? that sounds moronic
>Not even for a greeny reason but why would you delete the species that gives you so much money?
The "greeny" reason is more important in the long run.
I agree but i am thinking from the point of view of poachers
Yes. I can be a hypocrite but still be right about poaching being bad.
poaching is destructive to the environment, we also depend on the environment so in turn it's self destructive. this isn't a vegan vs normal people thing this is a long term consequence prevention thing
Mass consumption (including meat) is much more destructive to the environment than poaching
sounds more like mass production to me
It's practically the same thing. If there is consumption, it had to be produced in the first place
Yes.
It's about ecosystem maintenance. Animal lives do not have priceless value. Animal suffering, if it even exists, has no relevance to us. But a functioning ecosystem does. Nature > animals. Animals are merely disposable cogs in nature. Only a few have the ability to be worth keeping alive and these are normally personally owned by individual humans. Everything else can suffer and die as much as it needs to in order to maintain nature as a whole, but if it suffers and dies unnaturally in a way that damages nature, that is undesirable.
So? How does that mean you can't eat meat and be against poaching?
Just eat less meat that's produced more sustainably, instead of goyslop beef that was grown off subsidized corn and soi. Please remember, humans need to eat meat. Roughly a pound a week at the bare minimum, although athletes require more. We are biologically and physically obligate omnivores. We have the shortest gut, strongest stomach acid, and deepest, sharpest molars out of any ape and the only way a meat-free diet doesn't kill you is if you assemble it from an entire planets worth of growing seasons, crop diversity, facility-grown fungus, and industrially produced supplements all shipped to you via lumbering satanic machines burning ancient corpse juice. Despite this, attempting to raise a child on such a diet still results in permanent developmental delays, because humans evolved to eat meat.
If there is still an issue with meat production damaging the environment, I have a much cleaner solution than
>an entire planets worth of growing seasons, crop diversity, facility-grown fungus, and industrially produced supplements all shipped to you via lumbering satanic machines burning ancient corpse juice
It's called a one to zero child policy (0 for crims and 'tards). Two child exceptions for anyone who can score 130+ on an IQ test while being free of mental disorders and a criminal record that includes violent or sexual offenses.
>It's called a one to zero child policy (0 for crims and 'tards). Two child exceptions for anyone who can score 130+ on an IQ test while being free of mental disorders and a criminal record that includes violent or sexual offenses.
And I'd like to add that this also reduces all other forms of pollution and land use. Fewer humans means fewer fuels burned, fewer mines dug, fewer wind turbines, less sewage, fewer roads cut, the benefits to the planet are endless.
And much preferable to the natural end point of herbivory, which is increasing the population further, most likely to enslave them and collect imaginary money.
Boy you were bullied a lot
Ah schweet, a /gif/ tourist thread!
Excess hunting, fishing, or harvesting any living organism, plant or animal, is objectively bad. This behavior leads to the untimely extinction of said plant or animal, causing more extinctions, which does significant damage to our planet's current ecosystems—which we depend on to survive—and reduces our planet's overall genetic biodiversity of complex, multicellular life, meaning it will set back our planet's evolutional clock and snuff out genetic lines that could have kept l going for hundreds of millions more years in some form or another.
Can you name some animals whose human-caused extinctions have greatly affected us?
Dodo. Not having a moronic bird around to poke and prod and bully has led to ennui on a civilizational scale.
this explains so much that is wing with society
I believe the loss of the passenger pigeon may also have an effect on this
I meant wrong but wing is good too
Why not just bully chickens though
Last response because you're clearly a baiting moron, but I'll gesture vaguely to North America as a whole. Elk, wolves, bison, buffalo, native fish, birds, and even insects as a result of said changes, and reintroduction isn't as simple or easy. Not to mention the arguably even greater harm and loss of uncountable plant species, including species used for human food, which is a loss even for guilty vegetarians and moronic vegans. Sorry they didn't have biology class at your special school anon
Europe has made so many dangerous species extinct, and, from a wildlife perspective, is now the safest region in the world when it comes to animal-on-human deaths.
You know full well you don't have to make a species extinct to condition the population not to attack humans, moron
Bees (soon)
Killing sparrows in China
>Are there any real moral arguments against poaching that a meat-eating world can impose?
Of course, impact is a thing after all.
The animals we eat, they are for the most part captive populations, which we breed and control the numbers of, which means that the impact on the species (or related species) in the wild is greatly diminished.
You can't do the same with elephants or lions for ivory and pelts, they are too big and have too many different needs for you to industrialize and turn them into an easily accesible commodity. Instead you have to take them from their origin communities which as said has knock-on effects on the entire ecosystem, which in turn reduces the amount and quality of the services it can provide and makes it more frail to disturbance, which has only been intensifying these last centuries.
In other words, poaching bad 'cause:
>Leads to extinction of the species.
>Makes ecosystems be able to provide less and be more frail in general.
>The people in regions that have been picked clean by poachers will be poorer on the long term thanks to them.
No matter how you look at it, morally or economically, poaching not only is wrong, it doesn't make any sense in the first place beyond the greed of enriching oneself.
Troll thread btw, remember to sage guys.
to extinction of the species.
Hundreds of species go extinct every day.
Most often, it is another animal species causing that extinction to happen.
ecosystems be able to provide less and be more frail in general.
Nonsense & nebulous argument. Ecosystems fluctuate all the time, and an endangered species is likely not going to have a large impact on the ecosystem, in the first place, considering, you know, they're literally endangered.
>>The people in regions that have been picked clean by poachers will be poorer on the long term thanks to them.
Finally a good argument presented by you <90 IQ troglodytes, poaching MAY reduce tourism, and tourism is an important source of income for many African nations.
This is obviously not a good argument against hunting animals that are not actively endangered, but it beats "da majestic beasts are going extinct ;___;" nonsense.
>Hundreds of species go extinct every day.
So things going extinct is okay because it has become a more common occurrence?, what a deeply moronic argument, you've got my pity.
>Most often, it is another animal species causing that extinction to happen.
Humans are an animal species, so I'll just be kind and assume you meant humans by that.
>Nonsense & nebulous argument.
I don't expect you to know jackshit about ecology, but I would expect you at the very least try and not embarrass yourself. Indeed most (yet not all) ecosystems are usually in a state of fluctuation in which animal populations wax and wane depending on a number of environmental factors and overall demographic dynamics, but the impact of human activity on certain species within biological communities can easily throw off this complex interplay and result on it literally spiraling out of control (you can literally observe this process on graphs tracking animal populations), which often results in the extinction of animal species or their long term demographic decline.
Furthermore many of these species that have too many environmental needs for us to have stable captive populations of them often play vital roles in shaping the ecosystem they inhabit in the first place. We call this "keystone species". This term, common in the field of ecology, specifically refers to species that regardless of having a low or high population (and it's more commonly used for species that do have a low population), has a disproportionate impact on the ecosystem and / or other species in the same communities. So yeah, an endangered animal going extinct even if only in a given area (local extinction) can have dire effects on the rest of that ecosystem.
Also you haven't addressed the ecosystem services argument. Nature can provide things of real economic value to human societies that if they were not to be provided in sufficient amount, the government would literally have to provide instead. 1/2
It's crazy that Wauf still has intelligent and cultured posters such as you to this day
>tourism is an important source of income for many African nations.
As I was saying there's things of real, monetary value an ecosystem can provide other than the cultural value and the tourism it does bring.
Ecosystem productivity is paramount to being able to obtain as many goods and services from nature as possible, and a key factor in preserving a highly productive, highly lucrative ecosystem is species biodiversity. The less diverse an ecosystem is, the more susceptible to impacts it is and the more affected by those impacts it is, the less productive it will become in the long run. This means that even if you don't give a flying frick about the lives and continued existence of animals and would gladly shoot elephants, lions and whatnot just for the privilege of taking a shit on their corpses, there a very tangible reason you would want to preserve them as much as possible that being cold hard cash.
No replies please, morons tire me. 2/2
Yeah, eating the corpse of another animal is a natural human (and animal in general) biological function.
Grinding up ivory for boner powder is not.
Eating meat provides necessary nutrients. Elephant tusk boner powder doesn't work otherwise the africans would've been doing it long ago. It's just a moronic chinese superstition that mao apparently forgot to stamp out.
>eating the corpse of another animal is a natural human (and animal in general) biological function.
So your opinion is based on biological essentialism? That because something is natural, that it must be good?
Interesting, but I think I disagree for reasons that fall outside the scope of this discussion.
>Eating meat provides necessary nutrients.
We can synthetically create vitamins without having to hurt animals. And the amount of animals for consumption is waaaay beyond "necessary nutrients", especially when you consider that people eat muscle meat, rather than organs.
>That because something is natural, that it must be good?
More like this is the way nature works and if I don't like it, well tough shit for me. Trying to fight it disrupts the already delicate as frick balance that nature sustains and creates more problems in the long run: it's only worth it if the benefits outweigh the costs.
>Interesting, but I think I disagree for reasons that fall outside the scope of this discussion.
I refuse to get into a debate about the ethics of animal slaughter on Wauf. Let's leave it at this: eating meat provides a tangible benefit to the consumer, overconsumption aside. Ivory powder has no such benefits when it comes to increasing blood flow to the penor.
>overconsumption aside
>let me just set aside one of the biggest hikes in my argument aside
K
Overconsumption is not inherent to eating meat
Almost all levels of ivory harvesting are overconsumption because elephants are a poorly renewable resource and unlike meat, people do not need ivory to live, or do anything for that matter. Even the only sustainable level of ivory harvesting would be unacceptable because it would make it impossible to distinguish between legitimate ivory and african/chinese lies about illegitimate ivory.
Meat, on the other hand, is a simple issue. The animals are damn near infinite and the USDA can keep track of how much of a herd you have. We could easily limit meat consumption and if someone produced meat outside that system who cares, their land their chickens/goats. They're not a CAFO and not an environmental issue.
reminder you aren't a hypocrite if you eat meat and care about an animal.
animals lives are not valued the same as humans lives, because they are not your species, so the natural reasons to care about their perpetuation are entirely different. kin selection doesn't apply to something that isn't reproductively and behaviorally compatible.
>So your opinion is based on biological essentialism? That because something is natural, that it must be good?
if something is natural, it must be good
the idea that this is a fallacy originates in religious thought, which is a form of delusion - that there are giant people on top of a mountain or above the sky who are judging your behavior by their arbitrary rules.
good and bad do not exist without context and one such context is natural law. that is that survival and reproduction are the only goal because something that dies and goes extinct can not possibly be right in the grave.
therefore sin is anything that limits your lifespan below the age at which you could have children or contribute to a relatives efforts to have or raise them (factor in natural cognitive and physical decline and wealth accumulation ease/difficulty), or more abstractly, limits the lifespan of your entire species.
therefore virtue is anything that enables you to perpetuate your genes, and therefore your whole species, for as long as possible. thinking ahead this may require short term compromises on the rate of reproduction and which human bloodlines continue in order to extend the lifespan of the species (and therefore your extended kin) as a whole.
Monogamy is not natural, since if it was we'd only be attracted to one mate for the entirety of our lives. Does that mean it's not the most effective way to raise a child in human civilization?
Yes. Marriage is a business contract in every other culture. Cheating is fine if not good.
That's not a counter-argument for monogamy, that's a counter-argument for long-term monogamous relationship.
You can be monogamous and constantly switch partners, you know.
Realistically you can't because you'll have a hard time finding people to raise your kid with
Just leave the kid to the cuckold beta male.
We've done it tens of thousands of years ago, we still do it today.
Then it's not monogamy anymore since the kid is functionally not being raised by a couple
>mao apparently forgot to stamp out.
The CCP encouraged "Traditional Chinese Medicine" (which contains oodles and oodles of recipes invented since 1950) because at the time it was cheaper than actually delivering on their promise of universal healthcare. It's not a communist failing, it's a communist policy.
The cardboard concrete equivalent of healthcare. I'm not surprised at all.
>natural
There is nothing “natural” about the
dis-assembly line meat industry. What is “natural” about confinement houses? What is natural about a system that creates so much abundance through great suffering that even those “benefiting” from the system suffer poor health from the abundance?
>It's just a moronic chinese superstition
It's also for decoration.
I have an antique piano with ivory keys. Illegal to ever sell, but it's not all chink medicine. Do you have the same moral objection to leather?
Leather is more sustainable than petroleum derivatives.
What isn’t sustainable with any diet or consumption strategy is more than 3 billion humans.