Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Angry villagers hold baby elephant hostage until his family comes up with ransom   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 80
    More: Asinine, Asian elephant, elephants, Duchess of Cornwall, Aceh, held hostage, football pitch, Sumatra, Sumatran  
•       •       •

6383 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2013 at 11:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-30 03:42:31 PM  

offmymeds: Target Builder: Clemkadidlefark: That was one of the most horrible set of pics I have ever seen. Death to all those villagers.

I guess you skimmed over the words in TFA.

Don't tell him about circuses and zoos.


i759.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-30 03:44:40 PM  

offmymeds: Target Builder: RexTalionis: The solution is simple. Send in the army, take every child between the ages of 1 and 14. Put all of them in foster families on the other side of Indonesia and keep them there until the village gives up.

Try looking at it from the point of view of a person living in a village in abject poverty and a bad harvest away from starvation as opposed to the point of view of someone in a developed country with all the security that brings.

From their perspective if a herd of elephants eat their crops then their children go hungry and people starve. Nobody on earth is going to put the life of an elephant above the survival prospects of themselves and their children.

These probably aren't bad people, they are just in a very bad situation.

And animal cruelty will solve their problems how?


They're desperate. They're probably not thinking clearly. Kind of how a starving person will resort to thievery to get some food.
 
2013-06-30 04:03:26 PM  

Tman144: Who gives a fark about a farking elephant? Yes, lets have a masked ball to support all the poor baby elephants. All those people living in poverty? They can get farked. Maybe if you helped the villagers instead of the elephants, they wouldn't need to do this shiat.


Elephants are more entertaining than starving villagers.
 
2013-06-30 04:03:43 PM  
I would kill ten thousand baby elephants if it meant my family didn't go hungry.
 
2013-06-30 04:08:06 PM  

RexTalionis: Sadly for him, it is too late. He died alone, still chained to that tree, though Elephant Family worked tirelessly for a week to negotiate his release.
Already we've discovered that another calf, this one just a month old, has been captured and held to ransom by local farmers. Everyone is working around the clock to make sure that this little calf survives. I am doubtful.

I changed my mind. Execute them all. We can always make more humans.


Texas is making that possible.
 
2013-06-30 04:21:30 PM  

Target Builder: Anyone suggesting death to these villagers should go through the food and cosmetics in their house. If you find any products with palm oil in it (see TFA for examples) then you're a much bigger part of the problem than the poor bastards in the article who are just trying to avoid starving to death.


Yeah, take away the money and make the villagers MORE dependent on food crops that the elephants will smash their farms to get at. Brilliant!

/face it, you're just using tragedy to help big oil shut down natural alternatives
//even us neocons can see where you're going with that BS
 
2013-06-30 04:26:34 PM  

Target Builder: offmymeds:

And animal cruelty will solve their problems how?

One less elephant competing with them for their an their children's food.

RTFA. The people to be angry at aren't a bunch of dirt poor villagers with little control over major events that are inflicted upon them - its people in wealthy countries who use products with Palm Oil in it and the commercial palm oil producers who exploit the poor in their countries as much as they exploit the natural resources.

Anyone suggesting death to these villagers should go through the food and cosmetics in their house. If you find any products with palm oil in it (see TFA for examples) then you're a much bigger part of the problem than the poor bastards in the article who are just trying to avoid starving to death.


This.

It's hard to know who's more desperate here--the elephants, who are obviously rampaging deliberately, they are quite intelligent enough for that; or the villagers who are basically being forced into being serfs for the palm-oil industry.

It's worth noting that the Aceh villagers didn't have these problems with elephants till the palm oil companies and their plantations took over the region.
 
2013-06-30 04:38:16 PM  

pedrop357: Target Builder: offmymeds:

And animal cruelty will solve their problems how?

One less elephant competing with them for their an their children's food.

RTFA. The people to be angry at aren't a bunch of dirt poor villagers with little control over major events that are inflicted upon them - its people in wealthy countries who use products with Palm Oil in it and the commercial palm oil producers who exploit the poor in their countries as much as they exploit the natural resources.

Anyone suggesting death to these villagers should go through the food and cosmetics in their house. If you find any products with palm oil in it (see TFA for examples) then you're a much bigger part of the problem than the poor bastards in the article who are just trying to avoid starving to death.

Maybe they're in this situation because they think a solution is to tie up an elephant and starve and mistreat it.  Sort of a stupid begets stupid sort of thing.

If they were really concerned about starvation, I would think they would kill, dress, butcher, cook and eat the large animal they have chained up.


Or, maybe they're doing it as a "fark you" to the rich white people who step over their starving children to pet the pretty baby elephants.
 
2013-06-30 04:38:51 PM  
A muslim nation. No surprise there.
 
2013-06-30 04:44:07 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: RexTalionis: Sadly for him, it is too late. He died alone, still chained to that tree, though Elephant Family worked tirelessly for a week to negotiate his release.
Already we've discovered that another calf, this one just a month old, has been captured and held to ransom by local farmers. Everyone is working around the clock to make sure that this little calf survives. I am doubtful.

I changed my mind. Execute them all. We can always make more humans.

Texas is making that possible.


We don't make a lot of the executions you watch. We make a lot of the executions you watch...more controversial.

//from the combined fantasy efforts of the texas state travel board and 3M...
 
2013-06-30 04:53:05 PM  

offmymeds: Target Builder: Clemkadidlefark: That was one of the most horrible set of pics I have ever seen. Death to all those villagers.

I guess you skimmed over the words in TFA.

Don't tell him about circuses and zoos.


This implies I'm down with circuses and zoos. Couldn't be further fron the truth. If you need me to defend my hatred of either, let's step outside ...
 
2013-06-30 05:00:19 PM  

offmymeds: KimNorth: So don't but soap with veg oil as this is how it is labeled, does not have to say palm oil? Do tell what kind of soap does one buy? We all can't pay $12 for 2 oz of special soap or shop online.....I want to do the right thing.

Try this: Palm Oil Free Soap


$6 per 2.5 ounce bar, only available online...not what was sought. Palm-free soaps aren't carried by typical general goods stores in the US, and specialty stores charge much more for them than mass market soap. Walmart charges $0.50-$1.50 per 3-4 ounce bar for nearly all their soaps.
 
2013-06-30 06:00:48 PM  

pedrop357: mongbiohazard: Oh and don't get me wrong, I know what you were saying Target Builder... I'm just saying if anyone ever finds themselves in the position that they have decided the way to solve their problem is to start torturing living things to death perhaps they should consider they might not be in the right.... and might want to consider some farking birth control or, I dunno, LIVING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

It's one those sequences of events that will never happen.

For them to understand that their actions aren't proportionate or relevant to their cause would require a degree of introspection.  If they had that, they would have used it before and not come to the conclusion that they did.

The kind of people who take animals "hostage" because the animal ate their crops aren't the brightest bulbs by a long shot, and that probably explains why they're in the situation(s) they're in.

The only thing we could hope is that they have an epiphany and actually understand a slightly a bigger picture for the first time.


To be fair to the Sumatrans, many poor people in the US don't understand how corporate interests are farking them in the butt constantly and messing up their lives either, and keep voting to make sure that keeps happening, and they arguably at least have access to more education than the average villager in Sumatra does.

For all we know, someone is out there whipping them up and telling them palm oil creates jobs and elephants are the cause of all their misery, and it's because they are being too soft on elephants, unlike their noble ancestors, that things are currently bad for them.
 
2013-06-30 06:05:37 PM  
It's funny because they only hurt themselves and their children.

Anyways, if you have such a problem with it, then get some guns and go invade them. Otherwise, all that soap and crap with palm oil in it will still be in high demand and there will continue to be forest clearing.
 
2013-06-30 06:07:53 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: offmymeds: Target Builder: Clemkadidlefark: That was one of the most horrible set of pics I have ever seen. Death to all those villagers.

I guess you skimmed over the words in TFA.

Don't tell him about circuses and zoos.

This implies I'm down with circuses and zoos. Couldn't be further fron the truth. If you need me to defend my hatred of either, let's step outside ...


No need to.

The cut of your jib, sir.

I like it.
 
2013-06-30 06:23:00 PM  

Tman144: pedrop357: Target Builder: offmymeds:

And animal cruelty will solve their problems how?

One less elephant competing with them for their an their children's food.

RTFA. The people to be angry at aren't a bunch of dirt poor villagers with little control over major events that are inflicted upon them - its people in wealthy countries who use products with Palm Oil in it and the commercial palm oil producers who exploit the poor in their countries as much as they exploit the natural resources.

Anyone suggesting death to these villagers should go through the food and cosmetics in their house. If you find any products with palm oil in it (see TFA for examples) then you're a much bigger part of the problem than the poor bastards in the article who are just trying to avoid starving to death.

Maybe they're in this situation because they think a solution is to tie up an elephant and starve and mistreat it.  Sort of a stupid begets stupid sort of thing.

If they were really concerned about starvation, I would think they would kill, dress, butcher, cook and eat the large animal they have chained up.

Or, maybe they're doing it as a "fark you" to the rich white people who step over their starving children to pet the pretty baby elephants.


Or maybe they're doing it because they are smart enough to know that this elephant will (and did) get more attention than their children starving?

To the people saying "well just move or stop having children", how exactly do you plan on having that conversation?  Something like this:

"Hey, I know you're poor, struggling and have very few diversions or sources of pleasure in your life.  I also know that you likely have limited access to health care and, by extension, birth control.  So the most reasonable thing, I think is for you all to just remain celibate for life.  Don't have sex because we can't have you having children we'll have to be concerned about.  Look around, do you really think you deserve to have children or a normal sexual relationship with your spouse?  Don't be selfish!
And what's that, now?  You want to know how you're going to work your struggling farms with just one or two people?  Good question!
Alternatively, you could all just move.  Where?  Oh, another great question! You're such an inquisitive culture!
...Anyway, I'm going to go back to my first world, developed country and a life where I don't have to know or care about any of you.  Kthanxbye!
 
2013-06-30 07:09:05 PM  

tiamet4: Or maybe they're doing it because they are smart enough to know that this elephant will (and did) get more attention than their children starving?


If their children are starving, why don't the eat the elephant?
 
2013-06-30 07:14:13 PM  

pedrop357: tiamet4: Or maybe they're doing it because they are smart enough to know that this elephant will (and did) get more attention than their children starving?

If their children are starving, why don't the eat the elephant?


Because a baby elephant won't feed a village of people for very long, but calling attention to their plight might get more resources invested in their area for a longer period of time.  And if it doesn't...they can still eat the elephant.
 
2013-06-30 07:15:41 PM  
Seems those villagers are at least a bit smarter than you, hm?
 
2013-06-30 07:21:52 PM  
I'm just wondering who the villagers expect to pay this "ransom."
 
2013-06-30 07:26:50 PM  

NutWrench: I'm just wondering who the villagers expect to pay this "ransom."


If they were capable of thinking like that, they wouldn't have done this in the first place.
 
2013-06-30 07:31:22 PM  

NutWrench: I'm just wondering who the villagers expect to pay this "ransom."


You didn't just read the headline and skip the article altogether did you?
 
2013-06-30 07:32:00 PM  

pedrop357: tiamet4: Or maybe they're doing it because they are smart enough to know that this elephant will (and did) get more attention than their children starving?

If their children are starving, why don't the eat the elephant?


Their children are not "starving." The problem goes like this. Try to keep up and pay attention.

1. Farming in the area has changed from subsistence-level small-field farming to large-scale palm-oil plantations. This has altered the surrounding jungle and made the environment uninhabitable for the wild elephant herds.

2. The elephants are starving and attack the plantations and the farmers' fields looking for food; they also attack the villages in possible "retaliation" for mistreatment (elephants are able to understand people = bad things)

3. The farmers can't make a living from their own farm plots; they have no choice but to sell out to the palm-oil conglomerates and/or the government; thus, when the elephants rampage through the plantations and the farm plots, they lose both their food and their only source of income.

4. Elephants are protected under the CITES treaty and can't be shot or killed for food or sale. Only the government can make that determination.

Therefore, the farmers are screwed. The elephants have more rights than they do--and the elephants have no rights at all. In former times, the farmers would catch baby elephants, tame them, and use them as beasts of burden, the wild elephants would live in the forests, and everything would be okay. Now, the forests are gone--cut down for palm kernal plantations--the farmers cannot survive on their own farms and so have to work for the plantations, which means they have to do what the government tells them; and yet the elephants cannot survive in what forest is left, so they trample through the plantations and villages. The farmers have no right to kill the elephants--so the only thing they can do is take elephants hostage and demand government payoffs.

It's the end result of short-sighted corporate greed and bad government management, playing out on the backs of helpless animals (or maybe not so helpless) and people with no other recourse. The West wants its cheap palm oil--this is where it comes from. The West also wants its elephants protected--this is where they live, and they need a lot of room. Pick one, because there isn't room for both. But the farmers live there too, and either they need to work the plantations or they need to be able to go back to their farms.
 
2013-06-30 07:36:02 PM  
The farmers are tactless.

Their detractors are unaware assholes.
 
2013-06-30 07:52:47 PM  

Target Builder: NutWrench: I'm just wondering who the villagers expect to pay this "ransom."

You didn't just read the headline and skip the article altogether did you?


Well, the Sumatran government certainly isn't going to do it. Why would they even care? Appeals to kindness and humanity only work if the governments involved are even capable of being shamed and as a general rule, they aren't.
 
2013-06-30 08:22:19 PM  
Everyone here knows damn well that if every person in that village starved to death, it wouldn't matter in the slightest.  So unimportant is every individual in that place that every bit of land is more useful to elephant and other animal habitat because those animals are much more necessary and can survive with much less intervention.  Nothing good or noteworthy will ever come from these people, so why not relocate them or let them starve and let them give up the land they're wasting?

/tired of being told to care.
 
2013-06-30 09:39:07 PM  

KimNorth: thamike: Smackledorfer: thamike: Smackledorfer: thamike: Smackledorfer: True, but at the same time I think human beings need to stop over-breeding in inhospitable environments.

[bobtegner.files.wordpress.com image 555x358]

Should I know what that pic means?

You could always infer something from it.

No thanks.
Nine out of ten times people force others to play the guessing game they do so to troll and want an easy fallback point.

Say what you want or don't.
/shrug

You're looking at a complex situation from a convenient vantage point.  I thought the Romney pic would have explained my criticism of your simplistic worldview.  Sorry if my  mockery  hatred wasn't clear.

Fixed it for you.


Uh huh.
 
2013-06-30 10:35:08 PM  

tiamet4: pedrop357: tiamet4: Or maybe they're doing it because they are smart enough to know that this elephant will (and did) get more attention than their children starving?

If their children are starving, why don't the eat the elephant?

Because a baby elephant won't feed a village of people for very long, but calling attention to their plight might get more resources invested in their area for a longer period of time.  And if it doesn't...they can still eat the elephant.


And in this case it seems it did. The ideal outcome, rather than a bunch of rich uncaring westerners calling for people's children to be kidnapped or villagers killed, would be for the animal charities to work with other agencies in the area to solve both problems.

And the reason they're holding the elephant hostage and trying to get money from the government is because the government is taking bribes to let people destroy the jungle - thereby causing the problem in the first place.
 
2013-06-30 10:36:11 PM  

thamike: Smackledorfer: thamike: Smackledorfer: thamike: Smackledorfer: True, but at the same time I think human beings need to stop over-breeding in inhospitable environments.

[bobtegner.files.wordpress.com image 555x358]

Should I know what that pic means?

You could always infer something from it.

No thanks.
Nine out of ten times people force others to play the guessing game they do so to troll and want an easy fallback point.

Say what you want or don't.
/shrug

You're looking at a complex situation from a convenient vantage point.  I thought the Romney pic would have explained my criticism of your simplistic worldview.  Sorry if my mockery wasn't clear.


that was a pic of romney?
 
2013-06-30 11:06:59 PM  

gadian: Everyone here knows damn well that if every person in that village starved to death, it wouldn't matter in the slightest.  So unimportant is every individual in that place that every bit of land is more useful to elephant and other animal habitat because those animals are much more necessary and can survive with much less intervention.  Nothing good or noteworthy will ever come from these people, so why not relocate them or let them starve and let them give up the land they're wasting?

/tired of being told to care.


Because "they"re not wasting it. Did you even glance at the article? If "they" were all gone, the elephants wouldn't get the habitat.

But, right now, the Aceh government is close to adopting a plan that would see hundreds of thousands of hectares of this forest opened up for the cultivation of palm oil.


So you really should care. The villagers aren't profiting by "their" wasting of the forest. The Aceh government is. And they'd be just as glad if both the villagers AND the elephants were all gone, because then they could devote 100% of the forest to palm oil and pocket the whole profit. Blaming the villagers is exactly what the palm-kernal industry and the Aceh government want you to do--because it means you're not paying attention to them; but it's not the villagers or the elephants who are razing the forest and growing the plantations. Or making the money. They're just the ones who are dying.
 
Displayed 30 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report