Ricky Gervais blasts trophy hunters trying to excuse 'grim sport' by saying they 'provide a service'

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Just say you want to shoot an elephant. You don't make up a back story for it.

you want to shoot an elephant. happy now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

45k for an elephant probably goes a long ways towards paying rangers to keep the poachers in check. yet some apparently don't like that concept, meaning the elephants will just have to take their chances with poachers.

Sure. If you and the people paying that money actually believe the funds are spent in conservation. Whatever makes you sleep better at night I guess.

Its about as nuts as having mass orgies with randoms to promote sexual health. The ends are at odds with the means.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Venkman

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

That would be true in a myopic view of an imaginary world where elephants are the only commodity that can be traded for money. Luckily on planet Earth there are such things as real commodities and taxes and other means to collect funds to pay for these services. So many possibilities!

then pray tell, what could the locals do to generate cash instead of this?

let me guess, you think these hunts are just go out and blast the first ____ that is seen?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just say you want to shoot an elephant. You don't make up a back story for it.

You do if deep down, you know it's wrong.

[Dakine10 5,452]

you want to shoot an elephant. happy now?

No. Darn it! I knew you were going say that.

But seriously, if it was just about helping the elephants, couldn't people just donate the money.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Sure. If you and the people paying that money actually believe the funds are spent in conservation. Whatever makes you sleep better at night I guess.

Its about as nuts as having mass orgies with random to promote sexual health. The ends are at odds with the means.

why you think i'm paying money for those hunts is a mystery, maybe you misread?

your example is pretty far fetched. do try to come up with something reasonable.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Ricky who ?Must be a fellow stamp collector that hates guns . ... Never heard of him .

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No. Darn it! I knew you were going say that.

But seriously, if it was just about helping the elephants, couldn't people just donate the money.

They could indeed, but then what's the point in giving money for nothing. Charity isn't giving from the goodness of your heart, it's a commercial transaction of money for a service.

Apparently.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

No. Darn it! I knew you were going say that.

But seriously, if it was just about helping the elephants, couldn't people just donate the money.

and i'm sure some do.

yet - what is known about the ones that are killed?

perhaps - selected for culling by the local authorities for various reasons? like too old, not in good health?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Apparently killing the animals they purport to care for is the only way they can get money... [eye roll]

No. Darn it! I knew you were going say that.

But seriously, if it was just about helping the elephants, couldn't people just donate the money.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

why you think i'm paying money for those hunts is a mystery, maybe you misread?

your example is pretty far fetched. do try to come up with something reasonable.

Reasonable was already presented in the OP, discounted and ignored. Perhaps you should start there.

You don't promote conservation by killing the things you're trying to conserve.

[Dakine10 5,452]

You do if deep down, you know it's wrong.

I wonder why so many people say they like guns, but nobody will just come out and say they like shooting things.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ricky who ?Must be a fellow stamp collector that hates guns . ... Never heard of him .

Pointless statement. If you don't know who he is, you could look in the same amount of time it would take to post that you don't know who he is ;-)

I'd avoid the anti British bigotry though, that sort of thing is frowned upon.

[JohnR! 5,495]

In fact, it doesn't matter who Ricky Gervais is. The story doesn't change because of who the messenger is. Weak attempt at diversion...

Pointless statement. If you don't know who he is, you could look in the same amount of time it would take to post that you don't know who he is ;-)

I'd avoid the anti British bigotry though, that sort of thing is frowned upon.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder why so many people say they like guns, but nobody will just come out and say they like shooting things.

Well sure. It's how we can't have a conversation about how a gun is a weapon. Instead we get endless existential BS about how the object is divorced from the meanings that are associated with it.