Indian state says it's OK now to kill tiger poachers on sight

Originally posted by GLaDOS
Since when are animals more important than humans? don't agree with the policy. they should get arrested, not shot without even being sure they were actually poaching.

if you could ask a horse what was more important a horse or a man? he'd tell you a horse. but a man is capable of going beyond that. I agree with this law, good for india.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by paganini

 

as people have asked before in here how do you conclude human life is worth more of value?

Well, I recognize my specieist stance is not really supported by any good arguments. The main reason is simply practical - treating animal life as if it had the same value than human life is impossible and would make the biosphere collapse.

But thats not the issue here. Almost everyone here is specieist. They have no issue with animals being slaughtered in nature and slaughterhouses by the millions, yet they want death penalty for poaching. Hypocrites all of them.

Killing for food or defense is a whole different breed of cat that poaching. Pun DEFINITELY intended. And as for your biosphere argument, that's laughable.

Good policy.
I wish they would implement this policy in South Africa re elephant and rhino murders.

Good policy.
I wish they would implement this policy in South Africa re elephant and rhino murders.

Good policy.
I wish they would implement this policy in South Africa re elephant and rhino murders.

double post - sorry

reply to post by Ek Bharatiya


Grateful news, hope Africa follows suit with Rhinos.

reply to post by poloblack

Killing for food or defense is a whole different breed of cat that poaching.

Then you are a specieist who thinks human life is more valuable, just as I thought. Now explain what exactly is so wrong about poaching that it is worth killing a human over?

Poaching is like stealing. Its bad, but killing a thief will rightly get you convicted of murder unless your life was in danger.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by paganini

 

as people have asked before in here how do you conclude human life is worth more of value?

Well, I recognize my specieist stance is not really supported by any good arguments. The main reason is simply practical - treating animal life as if it had the same value than human life is impossible and would make the biosphere collapse.

But thats not the issue here. Almost everyone here is specieist. They have no issue with animals being slaughtered in nature and slaughterhouses by the millions, yet they want death penalty for poaching. Hypocrites all of them.

Not treating animals with care is stupid and endangers us in the long term. Take fishing at the current scale for example...recent studies show that we'll face serious fish shortage by 2040 if we continue as we are right now, which is horrible given how many people depend on it as a major source of protein.

So killing those "pathetic animals" (as you so moronically stated) has disastrous consequences for us.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by poloblack

 

Killing for food or defense is a whole different breed of cat that poaching.

Then you are a specieist who thinks human life is more valuable, just as I thought. Now explain what exactly is so wrong about poaching that it is worth killing a human over?

Poaching is like stealing. Its bad, but killing a thief will rightly get you convicted of murder unless your life was in danger.

Killing animals on the top of the food chain has disastrous consequences. But I guess you have no clue about biology and ecology, which is why you keep on posting your nonsense drivel

reply to post by MrXYZ

Not treating animals with care is stupid and endangers us in the long term. Take fishing at the current scale for example...recent studies show that we'll face serious fish shortage by 2040 if we continue as we are right now, which is horrible given how many people depend on it as a major source of protein. So killing those "pathetic animals" (as you so moronically stated) has disastrous consequences for us.

Did you read the article? They are talking about endangered tigers. Not a source of food and largely irrelevant to larg-scale ecology nowadays, so this doesnt apply. And even if this wasnt the case, then is it worth taking a human life? I dont think so.

And I am sure they are also at numerous zoos, they are not even at threat of extinction.

reply to post by MrXYZ

But I guess you have no clue about biology and ecology, which is why you keep on posting your nonsense drivel

So you advocate killing humans over stupid poaching, and I am posting a nonsense drivel? How about you look in the mirror?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Not treating animals with care is stupid and endangers us in the long term. Take fishing at the current scale for example...recent studies show that we'll face serious fish shortage by 2040 if we continue as we are right now, which is horrible given how many people depend on it as a major source of protein. So killing those "pathetic animals" (as you so moronically stated) has disastrous consequences for us.

Did you read the article? They are talking about endangered tigers. Not a source of food and largely irrelevant to ecology nowadays, so this doesnt apply. And even if this wasnt the case, then is it worth taking a human life? I dont think so.

And I am sure they are also at numerous zoos, they are not even at threat of extinction.

edit on 25/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

There are only 3000 left, and they're at the top of the food chain! I don't want to tell my future kid "we once had this really cool animal...but sorry, you won't ever see it". And no, there aren't many in zoos as it's super hard to breed them.

Fines and prison sentences don't work because poaching is too profitable. So you can either use drastic means to deter poachers, or accept that the species will die out. What gives us the right to rot out that species?

Originally posted by Maslo
they are not even at threat of extinction.

What are you on about? YOUR interpretation of what classifies as "threat of extinction" or the Governing body who determines it?

The Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) is a tiger subspecies native to the Indian subcontinent that in 2010 has been classified as endangered by IUCN. The total population is estimated at fewer than 2,500 individuals with a decreasing trend, and none of the Tiger Conservation Landscapes within the Bengal tiger's range is large enough to support an effective population size of 250 adult individuals.

Link for above

They certainly are. And India's authorities have deemed it illegal, they can implement the death penalty (presumably) for whatever crime they see fit to. Here in the US, it's for murder (or another human being), there it's for murder AND exploitation of fur, teeth, meat and bones (of a revered animal). Who are we to say they cant or shouldn't.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

But I guess you have no clue about biology and ecology, which is why you keep on posting your nonsense drivel

So you advocate killing humans over stupid poaching, and I am posting a nonsense drivel? How about you look in the mirror?

Yes I do, and I applaud the Indian government in protecting one of their most famous animals. How would you feel about rotting out bald eagles, an American symbol? You completely ignore the role those animals play in terms ecosystem...like said, you don't seem to have much of a clue when it comes to biology.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So you can either use drastic means to deter poachers, or accept that the species will die out. What gives us the right to rot out that species?

Then I accept the second option without hesitation. Endangered species protection is important, but not as much as protecting human life. I dont want to tell my kids "we have this really cool animal...but we killed many people so you can see it".

Being at the top of the food chain gives us that right as per natural rights. We certainly shouldnt exercise it, but not when this is the only alternative.

And no, there aren't many in zoos as it's super hard to breed them.

I am sure it can be done.

reply to post by MrXYZ

How would you feel about rotting out bald eagles, an American symbol?

Not worth killing people over.

reply to post by alphabetaone

Who are we to say they cant or shouldn't.

So I cannot voice my opinion? I can, and I will call them braindead morons till my hearts content.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How would you feel about rotting out bald eagles, an American symbol?

Not worth killing people over.

reply to post by alphabetaone

 

Who are we to say they cant or shouldn't.

So I cannot voice my opinion? I can, and I will call them braindead morons till my hearts content.

Of course you can voice your opinion, no matter how uninformed or moronic it is...it's a public forum. Still doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to understand the important role animals on top of the food chain play

Originally posted by Maslo

So I cannot voice my opinion? I can, and I will call them braindead morons till my hearts content.

Sure you can.

What you can't do is make a baseless claim that attempts to distort fact.

You said they weren't endangered. You didn't says "I dont THINK they're endangered"....

By claiming as much, you obviously care little for fact and consequences overall, and care more about whatever little point it is you think you're trying to make.

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
great. Now how many people are going to be shot and killed before it is proven they were actually poaching? since when can you just release a license to kill to the public?

Well the rule is simple. Post a sign at the boundaries of the forest reserve that any trespasser or poacherare under direct jurisdiction of the wild life preservation act of the GOI and that they will be shot upon (in all possible languages). If enough poachers are shot down, the rest will resist the trade. Its the GOI that has the responsibility to feed the poor and the hungry people not the animals. Thus lets leave the animals out of this. It is upto the selected groups that is trying hard to retain the endangered species population. Basically the wild life preservation/sanctuary/facility can also be treated as a Military Facility where only members of the branched services are allowed by the GOI.