Godaddy CEO Bob Parsons is proud of shooting an elephant in Africa - Disgusting!

[A D]

Bill Gates doesnt use his wealth to go to a impoverished country to kill an endangered species, to feed the townsfolks, and toss around his Microsoft hats and t-shirts, in the name of humanitarianism

The best line yet.

-=DCG=-

 

[Nathan King]

to go to a impoverished country to kill an endangered species

Elephants aren't endangered in Zimbabwe.

All but the most moronic idiots in first-world countries would buy that as an excuse.

Like the "moronic idiots" at The American Association for the Advancement of Science that published this report?

In other countries, however, trophy hunting provides a means of turning a problem into assets...resulting in greater tolerance of elephants and fewer animals killed overall (4). In Zimbabwe, implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas (3). As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe's already large elephant population (8).

That report was sponsored by the Amboseli Elephant Research Project, African Wildlife Foundation in Nairobi, Kenya, as well as conservation experts at the Dice University of Kent. But yeah I suppose those experts are morons while you are the authoritative guru on this highly controversial, highly biased subject.

EDIT:
Here is another study that explores the damage that elephants cause on vegetation, as well as the downside of using fences (due to the dynamic structure of the African savanna). This study also discusses how artificial water sources (for irrigation) causes elephant populations to explode in certain areas, which is wrecking havoc not only on crops but also on the natural vegetation of the land.

 

[Mark Talbot]

Elephants aren't endangered in Zimbabwe.


Like the "moronic idiots" at The American Association for the Advancement of Science that published this report?
That report was sponsored by the Amboseli Elephant Research Project, African Wildlife Foundation in Nairobi, Kenya, as well as conservation experts at the Dice University of Kent. But yeah I supposed those experts are morons while you are the authoritative guru on this highly controversial, highly biased subject.

*snickers*, no I am no guru, and that is not disputable.
And no, I did not call THOSE "experts" moronic idiots.

You are reasonably good at taking words out of context to make your point.

But that doesnt really work on me.

You see, my whole point is that I think the claims Bob has made for his expedition were false, and lies, and he is trying to make a high-end hunting trip sound like he was just trying to save lives and farmer's lifestyles.

I called him out on that and said bull****.



Since then, you have suggested I am a PETA fanboy, with political motivations, and am some kind of proclaimed guru on the subject. (did I leave anything out?)

No, none of the above.

But I am right on the point I have repeatedly pointed out on the motivations of this hunting trip, as well as the falseties presented by Bob on this particular point.

(and you cant address that at all. hmmm. Shoot the messenger, not the message. A typical tactic of one accused in the face of strong opposing opinion)

Is that you Bob?

 

[Nathan King]

But I am right on the point I have repeatedly pointed out on the motivations of this hunting trip, as well as the falseties presented by Bob on this particular point.

(and you cant address that at all. hmmm.

Yes Bob is a hunter. That's why he went elephant hunting. Just because he said he was helping the locals by hunting the elephant (and the hunter DOES decide whether to donate the elephant to the locals or not), does not mean his primary reason for hunting was charity.

Regardless, there is no reason to try to defend his motives as he did nothing wrong...which is the point that I think I've made with the research that I've quoted and linked to.

 

[Mark Talbot]

Elephants are NOT rodents, they are not insects,..

They are of less than a dozen species of living creatures on this planet that are sentient beings.
They have the intelligence to actualy recognise themselves.
The same class of intelligence as humans and Dolphins.

They should not be exterminated as pests.
They should be revered as intelligent beings.

 

[Nathan King]

Elephants are NOT rodents, they are not insects,..

They are of less than a dozen species of living creatures on this planet that are sentient beings.
They have the intelligence to actualy recognise themselves.
The same class of intelligence as humans and Dolphins.

They should not be exterminated as pests.

Ideally their numbers would not explode as the result of artificial water sources. Unfortunately, this IS occurring and if their numbers are not thinned, both the elephants and the people will suffer

People may argue that there are better methods to control the elephant population, and this may be true, but we have yet to find such a method. I would like to direct your attention to this study, which states:

If elephant numbers become a 'problem', three options are available: do nothing, regulate numbers within predetermined fixed asymptotes, or let environmental limitations control their numbers. To do nothing is self-explanatory. Regulating numbers usually takes the form of culling (van Aarde et al. 1999) or immuno-contraception (Fayrer-Hosken et al. 2000). These controversial and often sensitive options give a false sense of predictability in their outcomes. Forcing constant values onto elephant population and demographic variables may not have the expected outcomes, such as decreasing population growth rates or stem the degradation of vegetation.
…
I conclude – conservation managers, in their effort to conserve, enhance, and maintain biological diversity, should always attempt to simulate scale-dependent ecological processes.

Elephant over-population has the potential to cause other species to become extinct (both plants and animals). It also risks the survival of the entire local elephant population. On top of that, it causes many people to die (mostly through starvation caused by the destruction of crops).

So let me ask you this: instead of hunting, how would you "simulate scale-dependent ecological processes" as a means to control elephant over-population?

EDIT:
The more I research this topic (away from mainstream media bias), the more evidence I find to support the hunting of elephants. In this thread, I've presented peer-reviewed scientific studies that contradict what most of the mainstream media is reporting about elephants and elephant hunting in Africa (and they are reporting it without citing any sources). This type of baseless reporting is why I tend to avoid the mainstream media.

 

[ksinclair]

Good post.

There are also good comments about elephants being intelligent beings; I agree with that.

Another big problem is overpopulation, in general. We encroach on animal habitats, and then blame the animals. And hunters jump and and start killing.
What we need are fewer people in this world. We are burning up all our natural resources - animal, mineral, and so on.

I think your post gets right to the crux of the issue.

Bill Gates doesnt use his wealth to go to a impoverished country to kill an endangered species, to feed the townsfolks, and toss around his Microsoft hats and t-shirts, in the name of humanitarianism.

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is instead about education and invests in finding ways to help provide tools that people can use to grow themselves into more productive persons. So far he has given away a full one third of his wealth.


Bob Parsons,.... well,... he exibited exactly what you described above as self-promotional and self-rewarding expression under the idiotic guize of humanitarianism.

All but the most moronic idiots in first-world countries would buy that as an excuse.

Sure, he may have convinced the little community he helped by feeding that he was their savior, he may have patronized the Zimbuabwe officials that their monetary extortion of their resources for illigitimate gains was fair and worthy, but anyone with a sense of reasonable understanding and civility would know this was all just a hunting trip for him and some upper-management.

Now he has to backpeddle and find ways to show him as a decent individual again.

Like I said before, he will still sell gobs of domains, he will likely still go elephant hunting and toss out chotskies to the villagers, but at least now I for one know for sure what kind of man he really is.

 

[ukbackorder]

What we need are fewer people in this world.

Sadly we're not allowed to hunt them.

 

[PRED]

Sadly we're not allowed to hunt them.

you are in the wilds of the English countryside lol
http://www.patspapers.com/story_stack/item/man-hunting_the_new_fox-hunting_in_english_coutryside/

since we banned foxhunting. no doubt the tories will try to bring back in

 

[Nathan King]

You have to realize that man came from the earth. It is mother nature that caused our brains to get so big, which is what gave us the capacity to overpopulate the earth. Man's overpopulation of the earth is perfectly natural (we're not the only species to have overpopulated in earth's history either).

Animals dieing due to human overpopulation is natural selection. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to protect species from extinction. Animals going extinct can have a negative impact on ecosystems, and it prevents mankind from being able to enjoy observing said animal.

But the reality of things is, without man being here to enjoy the earth and it's creatures, what beauty is there? Mother nature is a cruel cruel thing, and most creatures on this earth are in a constant struggle to survive; having to be on guard 24/7 and still maybe getting brutally killed and ate by another creature (or having this happen to their babies). Where is the beauty in this constant paranoia...this constant struggle to survive?

I'll tell you where the beauty is...it's in the eyes of people. We are able to sit back from afar and enjoy mother nature in all her beauty.

Regardless, this planet...this rock floating in space...is pretty insignificant if you think about it. Even if the entire planet were to be destroyed, it wouldn't be the slightest bit noticeable in the grand scheme of things. Hell, if the entire solar system was destroyed it would have little impact on the universe overall.

But yes, I agree there are WAY too many people on this planet...and it's only gonna get worse.

 

[PRED]

It is mother nature that caused our brains to get so big,

don't get too bigheaded, an elephant has got a bigger brain than you lol

on a sidenote, if karma exists maybe the next elephant he tries to shoot, her bull elephant husband is round the corner and decides to shag bob roughly up the ass or better still trample him

 

[Nathan King]

don't get too bigheaded, an elephant has got a bigger brain than you lol

However, in proportion to the size of the body, an elephant brain is smaller than a human brain. Of course a 15,000 lb animal has a huge brain compared to a 150-200 lb human.

 

[Seraphim]

However, in proportion to the size of the body, an elephant brain is smaller than a human brain. Of course a 15,000 lb animal has a huge brain compared to a 150-200 lb human.

Dude, are you Bob's intern or something? You seem to be taking any and all objections to this hunting issue personally... ??

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

don't get too bigheaded, an elephant has got a bigger brain than you lol

on a sidenote, if karma exists maybe the next elephant he tries to shoot, her bull elephant husband is round the corner and decides to shag bob roughly up the ass or better still trample him

Bob's had an entire midget up his ass at one point, I doubt an elephant can top that.

 

[Nathan King]

Dude, are you Bob's intern or something? You seem to be taking any and all objections to this hunting issue personally... ??

Nope just bored, and I like to debate. I've been known to take a side just for the sake of argument. Of course debating with people over moral values is pointless, but I enjoy the time it occupies, and the research that goes into my argument.

Edit:
I should also note that I'm very stubborn when I debate, in case you haven't picked up on that yet.

 

[Seraphim]

Nope just bored, and I like to debate. I've been known to take a side just for the sake of argument.

Edit:
I should also note that I'm very stubborn when I debate, in case you haven't picked up on that yet.

Just messin' with you dude.

 

[Mark Talbot]

Nope just bored, and I like to debate. I've been known to take a side just for the sake of argument. Of course debating with people over moral values is pointless, but I enjoy the time it occupies, and the research that goes into my argument.

Edit:
I should also note that I'm very stubborn when I debate, in case you haven't picked up on that yet.

I can appreciate that.

Just some fyi, take it any way you wish, throw it out because I havent provided a link to the university study.
I really dont care.
I challenge you to do alot of reading on the species.

Elephants are amongst the world's most intelligent species. With a mass of just over 5 kg (11 lb), elephant brains are larger than those of any other land animal, and although the largest whales have body masses twenty-fold those of a typical elephant, whale brains are barely twice the mass of an elephant's brain. The elephant's brain is similar to that of humans in terms of structure and complexity - such as the elephant's cortex having as many neurons as a human brain, suggesting convergent evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence

The elephant is one of the few creatures (along with human beings) that is not born with survival instincts, but needs to learn these during infancy and adolescence. The brain is specially designed to accomplish this sort of life learning.
http://www.andrews-elephants.com/elephant-intelligence.html

Do a little (non-clinical and non-selective) reading before you spout off with your "stubborn" arguements.
This isnt a high school debate class, and one should be open, unless they are just trolling for their boss.


But none of that is the point of this thread.

Being stubborn AND off-topic is just an effort to derail the topic at hand.

Why did Bob lie !!
Who did he suspect would believe it??
He is just patronising the immediate press. Thats it.

Bob Parsons is the kind of guy that WOULD hunt a man if allowed.
(maybe he was just fattening up those villagers for the future )

 

[Nathan King]

I challenge you to do alot of reading on the species.

I've done many hours of research on this topic over the last few days. So yes, I'm familiar with elephants.

I am aware of elephants' intelligence and their social structure. I also am aware of their ability to communicate vocally up to 5 miles away (only one-upped by man, and maybe dolphins), though most of these vocals cannot be heard by man. Recent evidence suggests that elephants, by stomping on the ground, can create vibrations in the earth's crust that can travel for up to 20 miles. Elephants have apparently figured out how to communicate long-distance with these stomps. They are highly intelligent animals.

But I fail to see how this is relevant. Elephants are wild animals, and people have been hunting elephants in Africa for over 200,000 years. Who is anybody here to say that it's wrong? Due to elephants' massive size, humans are their only natural predator nowadays.


If the elephants were actually endangered, it would have been wrong for Bob to hunt them. The African savanna elephant is NOT endangered. The two countries of Zimbabwe and Botswana together contain over two-thirds of southern Africa's savanna elephants, and they are actually considered extremely over-populated in these countries (est. as much as 2:1 over the ecologically sustainable limit).

Also, if it had been an older female, it would have been wrong. They are vital for the young. I'm not condoning orphaning baby elephants. Males are not involved in the raising of the young though.

================

But none of that is the point of this thread.
Being stubborn AND off-topic is just an effort to derail the topic at hand.

Then tell me what the point of this thread is. Because the thread was created before Bob Parsons issued a response to the press. I was under the impression that we were discussing whether Bob Parsons was in the wrong or not for going elephant hunting; which is how this thread started (take a look at the first page). Of course, related conversation is acceptable IMO.

================

Why did Bob lie !!
Who did he suspect would believe it??
He is just patronising the immediate press. Thats it.

Here is the quote that I'm assuming you are referring to (because most of the report was in the journalist's words):

When you see me smiling in that picture, I'm smiling because I'm relieved no one was hurt, that the crop was saved, and that these people were going to be fed; the type of smile when you get a good report card or achieve a goal

Yes this is mostly bull****. He was obviously smiling because of a successful hunt (although the positives he listed were true). I can see why one might feel insulted if they felt that Bob expected them to believe this.

================

Do a little (non-clinical and non-selective) reading before you spout off with your "stubborn" arguements.
This isnt a high school debate class, and one should be open, unless they are just trolling for their boss.

By stubborn I meant this definition: tenaciously unwilling or marked by tenacious unwillingness to yield. Not this definition: refusing to move or change one's opinion. I make a strong effort in life to try to stay open-minded, and to put myself in others' shoes. That's why I don't automatically accept the western notion that elephant hunting is wrong.

I'm no hunter. I personally could never harm an animal except as a means to survive. I try to be realistic about things though, and realize that the predator-prey relationship is a necessary component of mother nature.

 

[jasdon11]

How do you know it was "a quick clean kill"? Were you there? From what I've heard, there is nothing "quick" or "clean" about it. Because of their size, it's hard to hit a vital organ, and when they do it's a slow death. There was blood all over the face of the elephant in the photo with Parsons, which suggests it took a while to die and was likely thrashing.

Because of their size, it's EASY to hit a vital organ - think about it.

Blood on its face? If you or I got shot in the head there's likely to be blood all over our face too; it doesn't suggest a prolonged death - it's just as likely to have died instantly.

 

[EUROPEAN]

Thought about shifting all my domains to be honest from Godaddy but I'm too lazy, I'm sure they lost some business over this but as they say in marketing
any type of publicity is good publicity.

if Bob went down to Libya and shot Gadaffi between the eyes and gave the locals Godaddy Hats and T-Shirts that would be much better press.

 

[ezimedia]

I am not going to move my domains from godaddy either but I still do not agree with what BOB P did.. but then there are many popular people in the spot light that do crazy shit all the time and people still follow them or watch them...