'I shot a whole family of baboons'

All of the other animals you listed got used for something after being killed

What did he do with the baboons / why did he kill them ?

How do you know he didn't eat the baboons or give them to the villagers or use their hides in the same way reptile skin or calfskin is used?
 
How do you know he didn't eat the baboons or give them to the villagers or use their hides in the same way reptile skin or calfskin is used?

I dont

and I have asked in this thread a few times now what was the purpose for killing the baboons. I am under the impression that he killed them just to kill them at this moment and looking for clarity .

I dont have a problem with hunting or using animals but I do think its wrong to kill something for no other reason than you can .... Is that not reasonable ?
 
Not sure what the problem is. Its not like he illegally hunted in Idaho, he was hunting in Africa legally. Why should I be mad? Baboons are assholes anyways.
zns.gif
 
I dont

and I have asked in this thread a few times now what was the purpose for killing the baboons. I am under the impression that he killed them just to kill them at this moment and looking for clarity .

I dont have a problem with hunting or using animals but I do think its wrong to kill something for no other reason than you can .... Is that not reasonable ?

I would agree and I think that's extremely reasonable.
 
Really? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........
Animals are here for the benefit of mankind, how we choose to use them is up to us and none of us have clean hands.

What are you? Some kind of justice warrior?

If you haven´t noticed, the majority of the posts in this thread are condemning the actions of this guy shooting giraffes. Then you start your mumbo jumbo about all of us being hypocrites. You are like a far left activist shooting wildly at people who is in your own camp. To extreme for your own good.

Do you know anything about forgiveness? Like in politics there has been a past we have acknowledged and not been proud of, but we have dealt with it and moved on. The same goes with how we have viewed mother nature and her goodness and exploited in ways we don´t want to do anymore in the modern western world.

As you can see I´m from Sweden, and we are world champions in having trust in people. You can call me naive, but I have a trust in the chickens I´m eating, and I know they are different from the ones growing up in industrial plants.
 
Last edited:
How do you know he didn't eat the baboons or give them to the villagers or use their hides in the same way reptile skin or calfskin is used?
How do you know he did ?
Western people don't typically eat baboons. Western hunters who go to Africa to hunt aren't doing it because they want to eat the meat.
 
How do you know he didn't eat the baboons or give them to the villagers or use their hides in the same way reptile skin or calfskin is used?
Speculation unsupported by any available information should be dismissed.

Try again.
 
I dont

and I have asked in this thread a few times now what was the purpose for killing the baboons. I am under the impression that he killed them just to kill them at this moment and looking for clarity .

I dont have a problem with hunting or using animals but I do think its wrong to kill something for no other reason than you can .... Is that not reasonable ?
so what about swatting flies? or hornets/bees? what if a rattlesnake was in your yard near your kid? (or family, friends, etc...)

where do we draw the line here?
 
How do you know he did ?
Western people don't typically eat baboons. Western hunters who go to Africa to hunt aren't doing it because they want to eat the meat.

You're right, we don't know that he did. But if he shot the family of baboons because he wanted to see how they tasted, would that some how justify the killing to you? What if he wanted to make fuzzy britches out of their hide like Raquel Welch, would that justify it? Or if he gave the meat to locals? We justify the killing of animals all the time because we use their body, flesh and hide. So if he is doing the same (not saying he did, but it is possible since we don't know for sure), is the killing justified?
 
so what about swatting flies? or hornets/bees? what if a rattlesnake was in your yard near your kid? (or family, friends, etc...)

None of those are animals killed for the fuck of it. Theres a reason behind taking out each and every one and you are talking about keeping your house free of pests not going out into the wild . I think youll be in the clear if you just dont kill things for the fuck of it and that you are over thinking it a bit here.
 
To the guy I marked with a yellow. This is cold blooded thinking. So why do you have the urge to kill? Why can´t you let the animal live if you just do this for the fun of hunting? Why can´t you play theHunter: Call of the Wild instead? When I´m fishing I don´t keep the fish, I let it go back in to the water. And the reason I don´t keep the fish is the fact that they collect alot of poison and harmful doses of metal inside them. That is a problem we see more and more in our sweet water lakes. The deeds from the past by us humans will now punish us for along time. And a reason why I forbade my wife not to eat any kind of fish while she was pregnant.

I think people with a hunting rifle or bow should incorporate the mentality of fly fishing.

waft1bh.jpg

WmbJGzr.jpg

9CQXUEi.jpg

0okGasM.jpg


The game I mentioned is IMO the prettiest looking hunting game on the market.

As you said, populations get out of balance so the herd needs to be culled.

My only point was that all hunters like to hunt. No one is saying I wish I didn't have to, but I gotta put some food on the table.
 
Claiming that nobody has to supplement feeding their family by hunting is absolutely clueless . . . claiming that someone has chosen to use wild game over store bought meat is literally something a clueless person would say . . .

So yes . . . in this case you're clueless.

Ok, I'm clueless about the fact that most hunters are spending hundreds a year on gear, ammo, and target practice. Then spending money on licenses to hunt and after shooting a deer have to pay a butcher to process it.

They aren't saving this huge chunk of money by not buying meat from the store - they're at best saving a small amount and more likely than not breaking even.

I used to hunt (no time now), most of my family still do - none of us ever did it out of necessity.
 
Ok, I'm clueless about the fact that most hunters are spending hundreds a year on gear, ammo, and target practice. Then spending money on licenses to hunt and after shooting a deer have to pay a butcher to process it.

They aren't saving this huge chunk of money by not buying meat from the store - they're at best saving a small amount and more likely than not breaking even.

I used to hunt (no time now), most of my family still do - none of us ever did it out of necessity.

Where did I say they were doing it to save money? It's a choice to harvest your own meat . . . because you know where it comes from and what is done with it afterwards. Many of us actually process it ourselves.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make . . . you're using how much someone spends on hunting to support your stance that "nobody has to supplement feeding their family by hunting"? Is that still it?
 
There's nothing objectively wrong with what he's done. You may disagree with hunting but nothing objectively wrong with it.

Killing for fun is objectively wrong.... no question. The question is just how wrong it is.

Proof: if you assembled 100 righteous good people all from different cultures and asked all of them if it was right or wrong to kill an animal for no reason other than the pure fun of doing it, nobody would honestly answer "yes" without qualifying it with other reasons beyond it being "fun."
 
Back
Top