You're assuming that the only reason hunters would donate to conservation efforts is to assuage guilt in their own consciousness.
Actually that's not what I said at all.
You quoted a portion wherein I was musing about the possibility that trophy hunters actually don't feel guilt about trophy hunting, but still hunt at regulated or seemingly regulated places because of public perception.
I also touched briefly on the psychology of someone who wants to kill a large animal and member of a vulnerable species half way across the world out of zero necessity but rather for sport. Are you actually trying to suggest that we can interpret nothing about the person who would do that, and that doing so is magical mind reading?
The whole of your initial post was moral in tone
Yes, certainly lots of what we're talking about rubs up against moral concepts. But I'm still operating under the assumption that we're all of us in agreement about trying to minimize the amount of elephant deaths. There's a difference between discussing things that involve morality, and the accusation that I have claimed moral superiority doesn't hold any water at all when it is yours and anyone else's morality to which I am directly appealing.
That said, it is ridiculous of you to suggest, and not to mention a yet further example of your misunderstanding of the concept on a fundamental level, that anyone who disagrees with someone on a moral level and judges that person for it is a moral authoritarian.
What, if anything, have you done? My guess is that it's less than myself.
This doesn't need to be a pissing contest. You accused me of being all talk and no action, when that was, on a strictly factual level, incorrect. I save about 1,000 gallons of fresh water use, about 30 square feet of forested land from deforestation, and about 20 pounds of CO2 or equivalent gases from entering the atmosphere, and about one animal's life. Every single day. And that's just from not participating in the system that has necessitated a solution to endangered decline in the first place: the human land occupancy caused by animal agriculture. It is the single larger contributor to deforestation.
Now I'm not going to sit here and say that you might be better off cutting animal products out of your diet than you are canvassing. Neither am I going to go into my own out of pocket donations, volunteer with my local conservancy, or any work that I do. Because unlike you my point isn't that I do more than you. I never brought you into the equation at all. All I did was refute the simply untrue and unfounded assertion that I do no action toward my principles. And really I can't fathom why you felt confident making such a claim in the first place unless of course you took it upon yourself to read my mind and extrapolate a very nice straw man out of it.