Indian wildlife rangers to be paid reward for every poacher they shoot

[K-II]

I know. They're called speciesists.

So you're what... a kingdom-ist? Or do you judge the value of each organism individually?

I am going to rob a bank to feed my family. I mean, I have to put food on the table, people! So please - don't shoot. In fact, you should feel bad for me.

Now hand over the money, bitches.

I understand this is more weight-efficient than stealing food directly, but you'd probably be safer holding up a grocery shop.

 

[Dedalus]

I understand this is more weight-efficient than stealing food directly, but you'd probably be safer holding up a grocery shop.

I don't know about that.

 

[uno]

I don't know about that.

anything Raising Arizona destroys all. It's the rock in rock paper scissors.

 

[Forster]

I am going to rob a bank to feed my family. I mean, I have to put food on the table, people! So please - don't shoot. In fact, you should feel bad for me.

Now hand over the money, bitches.

Not living in a 3rd world country gives one more options, I don't think most of us understand true poverty.

 

[uno]

Not living in a 3rd world country gives one more options, I don't think most of us understand true poverty.

absolutely true.

 

[Dedalus]

Not living in a 3rd world country gives one more options, I don't think most of us understand true poverty.

I don't disagree with you there. All I know is that if I was in charge of protecting tigers - and somebody trespassed into their safe place with the intent to kill them / poach - I would not have any problem shooting them on the spot. And you wouldn't have to give me incentive money to do so.

If it was your home - your animals that they were coming after - you would do differently? I'm not unsympathetic to the poor or those in need. It's just that I could not stand by and let that happen no matter who it was. Not in front of me.

 

[Forster]

If it was your home - your animals that they were coming after - you would do differently? I'm not unsympathetic to the poor or those in need. It's just that I could not stand by and let that happen no matter who it was. Not in front of me.

I love my dogs, but I wouldn't end another human's life to protect them.

 

[Dedalus]

I love my dogs, but I wouldn't end another human's life to protect them.

It is an admirable position; it is just one that I do not share.

 

[uno]

I love my dogs, but I wouldn't end another human's life to protect them.

yeah, not sure about that one. could go either way.

It is an admirable position; it is just one that I do not share.

yeah, it all comes down to peoples' ethics and viewpoints. the beauty of our differences.

 

[led.boots]

IMO, accepting money for ending the life of any creature is unethical.

 

[uno]

IMO, accepting money for ending the life of any creature is unethical.

what would you accept that would make that ethical?

 

[das_nut]

Not living in a 3rd world country gives one more options, I don't think most of us understand true poverty.

Living in a first world country does give one more options, but there are plenty of people who don't have enough to eat in the US. There are plenty of people who are without adequate shelter, especially in the winter. There are many without adequate clothing.

Poverty is still here, and even if the poor in many Western nations don't have to deal with chorea in the water supply or the chance of catching polio doesn't mean they aren't experiencing true poverty.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

IMO, accepting money for ending the life of any creature is unethical.

my vet might disagree. not that he's mr pet euthanasia 2012 or anything...

 

[uno]

my vet might disagree. not that he's mr pet euthanasia 2012 or anything...

good point.

 

[mlp]

I love my dogs, but I wouldn't end another human's life to protect them.

I would, to protect mine.

 

[Ansciess]

I love my dogs, but I wouldn't end another human's life to protect them.

Yeah, and that's the tragedy of pet ownership. We take these animals away from their own mothers and families - who really might protect them in this way - and put them into human families where they're always second class...where even the lowliest (unethical, murderous, etc.) human's life is worth more than the noblest dog's life.

 

[led.boots]

what would you accept that would make that ethical?

Nothing I can think of, really. It is why I'm vegan.

Living in a first world country does give one more options, but there are plenty of people who don't have enough to eat in the US. There are plenty of people who are without adequate shelter, especially in the winter. There are many without adequate clothing.

Poverty is still here, and even if the poor in many Western nations don't have to deal with chorea in the water supply or the chance of catching polio doesn't mean they aren't experiencing true poverty.

There is food, shelter, clothing, and emergency medical care available here, though, imperfect as they are. Poverty here *is* different than in very poor countries.

my vet might disagree. not that he's mr pet euthanasia 2012 or anything...

I think it is unethical to euthanize a healthy animal, vet or no vet.

 

[kibbleforlola]

I would, to protect mine.

Me, too. My animals are my family; you mess with my family, I mess with you.



The way I see it, shooting a poacher caught in the act be like shooting a murderer (of humans) caught in the act. Is it the *right* thing to do? I don't know. It's morally ambiguous at best. I probably wouldn't take a job knowing I might be killing poachers myself. But I am most definitely not going to feel bad for them. A life for a life is fair enough for me.

 

[uno]

Yeah, and that's the tragedy of pet ownership. We take these animals away from their own mothers and families - who really might protect them in this way - and put them into human families where they're always second class...where even the lowliest (unethical, murderous, etc.) human's life is worth more than the noblest dog's life.

some strong stereotyping here. second class?? i think not. at least with my animals.

and if you've read responses on here, the noblest dog's life seems to be more valuable than, say, a poacher.

here's an example: My dog got free from our yard. She killed some of our neighbors' chickens. By law, that neighbor has the right to shoot my dog and came close to doing it. My wife intervened and she was saved. If my neighbor would have shot my dog (and been in the right for numerous reasons), I would have broken the law and beat him down. How is that treating my dog as 2nd class when i'd probably be assured jail time or something??

 

[Forster]

Yeah, and that's the tragedy of pet ownership. We take these animals away from their own mothers and families - who really might protect them in this way - and put them into human families where they're always second class...where even the lowliest (unethical, murderous, etc.) human's life is worth more than the noblest dog's life.

Is it really wrong to value human life over animal life if one must choose? Should being unwilling to kill a human to protect a pets life preclude one from having a pet?