Non disclosure in business.

Post Reply New Topic

Not true. They're classified as "vulnerable", which is not good but is not "critically endangered". There are probably under 20,000 lions in the wild, but you massively overstate the rate of decline. In 1993, there were 35000-38000 wild lions.

Whilst it wouldn't be surprising if lions did die out in 200 years, this is an inappropriate extrapolation.

I wouldn't dream of doing it myself, but it does increase the area available for conservation. The hunting areas have to be separate from the areas where huge numbers of tourists go on safari, so that's an extra incentive.

Yes, it would probably be better if hunters gave their money to conservation charities - but that's unrealistic, and might not even work for the reasons outlined above.

There's talk that's about to change this fall when they are added to the list of endangered species.




You are in denial.


Cecil was a protected animal. He had a tracking collar. The poacher and the hunter tried to destroy it, thus, destroying evidence of their illegal activity. Walter Palmer is responsible for his part in this and should be penalized. Lions have declined 82% within 100 years with most of it occurring within the last thirty. Everything I posted so far is truth and still stands. You cannot argue with facts. If this keeps up, they will go extinct.

So?

If there was a crime, then let the courts sort it out. If extradition is necessary, then the U.S. government should comply. If the hunter gets convicted and sent to prison, then call the waaaaaaaambulance, because I'll not shed a single tear over it.

And I'm still not going to as a business owner what he does in his leisure time.

And, after all the Cecil publicity, it could be a boon to conservation and help to preserve lions well into the future since people will add to conservation efforts, donating money. I am not against hunting on principle, so long as the species' numbers support the rationale behind it but if this is not possible, I cannot enter the mindset of wanton destruction upon nature just for the sake of doing it. That being said, I have no interest in hunting, do not advocate it nor have I ever done it. I have family members who do "real" type hunting but everyone in the family has a prejudice against hunting for trophies alone. The meat gets devoured and the shot is clean.

What happened to Cecil is a crime against nature as far as I am concerned and humans should be held accountable like with any. It's a bad example for Americans to set as well. We criticize the tactics of ISIS and then export trophy hunters like this who only care about bagging the best animal despite laws in place to preserve a species on the decline and yes, Cecil was a protected member of such a species even though it hasn't been officially declared endangered, only threatened, just the prospect of it being declared endangered in the near future should be a huge wake up call to anyone planning on hunting it. It might as well be endangered. Why does it take a law to tell someone, the species is declining, don't help it on it's way by killing it's members. That's something humans should be able to figure out on their own. Just reading and gathering info on it is enough to tell them. It told me. I read the info on lions and reached this conclusion. So if I can, anyone can. There's no excuse for them not to.

That's why I say! Let it go to trial but don't let Walter Palmer go scott free when there's evidence of a crime. They need to seriously DNA sample any fine examples of lionhood. And if I found out a business supported hunting a threatened or endangered species, I'd go someplace else. That's the American way. Free enterprise. If you don't like one, go to another. You should be allowed to know.

You ARE allowed to know. It's just that no one has to disclose their personal interests to you.

So go ahead and ask. Just be prepared to be told to mind your own business and stop trying invade other people's privacy ... unless you want them to invade your privacy, as well.

There's ways to find out just by casual, innocuous small talk or filling out intake forms. For instance, let's say you are severely allergic to peanut butter and you list it on one of the intake forms you fill out when you first start seeing a new dentist. If the dentist eats a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast everyday before work, it's bad news for you, right? So this is info they gather from you to treat you safely and it really is, theoretically, none of their business or yours who eats peanut butter or who's allergic to it yet somehow the info gets exchanged even though the dentist might not tell you he eats it because he doesn't wish to panic you. But, it is pertinent he do something to ensure your safety even if he doesn't tell you.
People need mental safeguards as well, right? Like, if you have a real problem with trophy hunting and some people really hate it, it would traumatize you finding out your dentist trophy hunted and his hunts were partially financed by your patronage. If you find out before you start going, you can avoid the situation entirely. In fact, if you knew your dentist supported non hunting conservation efforts involving threatened or endangered species, you would feel better knowing your money would help in that area and it could be what draws you to such a dentist. So what's the problem with advertising? That way people know for sure where, exactly, you stand. Everyone has at least one fundamental value they firmly believe in.

It's similar with athletes who hit their spouses or religious people involved in sex crimes. When people find out, they are shattered, especially when it involves religious people because those are the ones who are always manipulating everyone to feel bad about every sexual thought and when they regularly engage in the very thing they want others to feel terrible about, it is really traumatic which is why you see such a rabid response. It brings out that sense of broken trust. A dentist is kind of like an authority figure like a doctor, police officer, pastor or teacher. Not quite as authorative as those but very close. He's thought of as a professional member of a community. He is held to similar standards. Police officers are another example. If you arrest those for breaking the law, you must uphold the law yourself. Whenever a scandal erupts involving them, or teachers, you always see the same sort of responses from members of the community due to the authoritarian nature of these occupations and the high standards they expect from others.

Just recently, a teacher went on summer vacation without arranging a substitute in a testing center to fill in for her absence first, and much to their dismay, students scheduled to take the test showed up to locked doors and no explanations. Naturally, they were livid. They were scheduled to take the ACT college entrance exam. Later, they find out the one running the testing center over the summer break had gone on vacation and not arranged a replacement before leaving. This was featured on the local news. One student was interviewed and she said something like, they hold us to a high standard so I am going to hold them to the same high standard which pretty much exemplifies the sentiment behind all the blowback when these scandals appear involving authority figures. The students were even further insulted by arrangements for them to take the test on a Saturday when it was originally scheduled on a Wednesday because they had weekend softball games and whatnot.

solution don't go to any business that doesn't specifically list they don't do that activity . mean you're going to have very few to go to now but problem solved.

trophy hunting while I think is bad is not a illegal. hitting another person is. so you're comparing a legal activity you disagree with to an illegal activity. its a moral dilemma just like gay marriage is to others.
you stop going there because you disagree, and 2 people start going their to support the business. people have the right to privacy and doing legal activities falls under that privacy.

if it turns out he broke laws then yes. but in general trophy hunting is legal.

not sure what a person who contracted to be somewhere and then went on vacation has to do with this. that's a breach of contract.

I agree with everyone else if you want businesses and their employees to surrender their right to privacy you better expect to have to surrender yours too. maybe as a business they don't' want to sell a laptop to someone who will then use it to try to remove their rights. where did you stand on hobby lobby again?

private life actives are not a part of the company. if the company takes all hits employees big game hunting and writies it off then sure It'll be public information. but if a ceo goes its none of our business. just like if he goes home and sleeps with his gay partner its none of our business.

Back when record stores were a thing, I stopped feeling bad about buying CDs online when i found out that the guy who ran the cool independent music store liked to ply teenage girls with drugs to have sex with him. Teenage boys too, fwiw.

The guy who owns jimmy johns does the african trophy hunt thing too.

IT's not hunting i have a problem with but I'm not sure that sitting in a range rover while you wait for your highly paid guide to line up the shot for you is really hunting, is it?

Carl Karcher (Carl's Jr, Hardees, etc) was an anti-gay activist but he's dead.

Cracker Barrel is a member of ALEC which is pretty evil as right wing cheapskates go. But i still eat there about every 18 months.

Political contributions, you can look up online. The rest, they don't have to tell anybody.

Remember that when Chick fil A got some publicity over the anti-gay thing their business surged for while. Exposing a business for something you don't like will likely expose it to those of the opposite opinion as a positive.

I think that was more the "Look at me, I'm an a**hole!" effect.

You mean like that guy who got himself fired for that video of him berating a drive in girl over the company owners politics?

Really, "backlash to the backlash" has become a real thing on both sides of the political aisle, though it seems to more often be conservatives, as liberals seem much quicker to threaten boycotts over politics.

I don't go to Chic Fil A anymore and it's because they came out and were honest about where they stand which is something I disagree with because I don't believe gay people are any worse than anyone else so I don't support them.

I used to like Hobby Lobby due to their selection of art supplies but now that I know about their affiliation with hardcore religious fanatics and their agenda to entirely control parts of the country, if not all of it, I try not to buy from them.

I am grateful for these disclosures but not grateful enough to eat one of those Chic burgers. Sometimes I cannot avoid HL though.

The point is that drawing attention to Chick-fil-A over thier owner's stand on the LGBT subject and trying to bring about a boycott ended up instead having the opposite effect and being profitable to them. Sometimes it's best to just quietly suck it up and boycott as an individual.