Big game hunter trampled to death by elephant in Namibia

but in no way are you living up to that standard yourself.

Incorrect. Not only to I try my best not to participate in the systems that have created the problem, not only do I pay out of pocket toward solutions that make better sense to me, but also here I am discussing the issue.

You need both talk and action. Action in a vacuum is only good on a personal level. It's still good, but ignoring the ongoing problem surrounding you isn't. It takes both. And that's what I'm doing. And you seem to be projecting here. Big time. I'm all talk and no action? Where's your action.

Not understanding fundamental academic principles.

Projecting again. And not in the least because you've made it very clear that you have no idea what "moral authoritarian" even means. I haven't discussed morality at all because it seemed very clear that everyone here was on the same page about the moral aspect of this conversation, that mitigating death is a good thing. Otherwise why would anyone even bring up the fact that trophy hunting is a net benefit in that regard, let alone advocate for it. Disagreeing on the implementation of a solution therefor is one thing, but I didn't discuss morality at all. And now you're accusing me of simply assuming that everyone I disagree with is simply morally unenlightened? That's simply not the case at all. In fact, it seems to bear repeating, I'm operating under the assumption that we're all on the same page here in terms of morality. So correct me if I'm wrong. Just like I'm correcting you here. It isn't I who is failing to understand fundamental concepts, it's clearly you.

Especially if, as you went on to imply, you think that people will always do things that benefit them. If this was true, then we wouldn't have anyone acting against their own self interest. But that's not true is it? Animal agriculture is bad for everyone, not just in terms of land occupancy causing the very crisis that regulated trophy hunting hopes to mitigate, but in terms of it being a larger contributor to greenhouse gas emission than the entire transportation sector. And also in terms of it significantly increasing the chances of some pretty dangerous afflictions like several cancers, heart disease, and diabetes. But people would never gamble with their health like that just because they like the taste of meat and eggs, would they?

Well, actually they do it every day. Which is why self interest or lack thereof is not a good metric because it ignores a few fundamental principle of human psychology, the constant weighing of pros and cons, and the way in which short term pleasures often win out.

Under your poorly conceived and overly simplified model, there would be no philanthropy. But in the real world, there is. So my only explanation as to why you think philanthropy violates a fundamental (and, for some reason, academic) principle at all, when in fact it is shown to happen all the time as a matter of weighing feeling good helping, or getting good press, or whatever the case may be, against parting with the given amount of money, is that you don't understand the principles you're talking about.

A "hunter" is just a category to you, and it's filed under "bad guy."

Wouldn't "bad guy" be the category if it's the thing under which other things are filed? Just kidding, that's not the point I want to make here.

The point I want to make here is that, yes, trophy hunters, not hunters, but trophy hunters who kill for sport, who don't consume the meat out of necessity, but kill the biggest thing they can find because they feel good doing it, is of course descriptive of that individual. I'm not reading minds, I'm making a judgement based on an action. Someone who likes killing people, not in self defense, but for the fun of it, should also be judged for their action. It's on a more extreme scale, maybe, but I'm just highlighting the fundamental problem for you. Let's take it the other way. Someone who likes to kill squirrels not because they're bothering them in any way, but because they just enjoy it, are making a conscious action, and judgements made in light of that isn't a magical ability to read minds.

Although, if we're to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do actually understand what moral authoritarianism is, then your assessment made in spite of the previously described insufficient evidence actually is an example of you projecting.

So I'm afraid the congratulations go to you. A perfect 3/3 for your made up list of criteria for a moral authoritarian. None of the the three have anything to do with moral authoritarianism, but hey, it's your list, not mine. The sort of ill-advised pseudo-intellectual thing that someone who is a perfect case study of undeserved self-importance making judgement on others would create.

/r/news Thread Parent Link - independent.co.uk