8 ms·

I guess I'll be the lone discenting voice and say I don't think it's that bad. Bob Parsons has always run his company the way he wants, and he has particular fr

• dpcan 16y ago
  Thank you. Agreed. He fed a village (or more), saved the crop, and it looks like the people there find this to be a noble act. Our U.S. grocery stores have stock piles of meat stacked in open refrigerators, butchered behind closed doors. Animals are fed and bred to be slaughtered so we can have a juicy burger and fries. Out of sight out of mind I guess. Now... MAYBE the CEO of a hugely popular brand should not have participated in such an activity and filmed it for sake of his company, employees and customers, but I'm certainly not moving my domains over this. There are probably employees there that don't like what he did either, but I'm not going to punish them for the actions of 1.
  • StavrosK 16y ago
    > I'm certainly not moving my domains over this. Me neither. I'm moving my domains because this reminded me of the silent, seething rage I have for Bob Parson's face. When I go to a site that registers and manages domains, I don't want to see your face. I also don't want to see ads about how great your company is. When I buy a domain, I don't want to wade through five pages of bullshit you put up in the hopes that I won't notice some default or will misclick somewhere and inadvertently buy your useless services. I just want to register and manage my fucking domains. Seriously, GoDaddy is the expertsexchange of domains.
    • erreon 16y ago
      Just out of curiosity where are you going to move your domains? I own just over 30 domains all at GoDaddy and I'd move them over the massive amounts of cross selling and insanely cluttered UI.
      • vladd 16y ago
        Namecheap offers a 4.99 USD transfer special using the "byebyeGD" coupon code, valid until 11:59pm EST 1st of April 2011: http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/ http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/
        • chair6 16y ago
          ... and just emailed me, as an existing Namecheap customer, letting me know that I can help save the elephants. Nice fast-move marketing. :) "It's not often that we would disagree publicly with a competitor, but we at Namecheap are very disturbed by this video of a competitor killing an elephant for sport. Check out the ABC News Report (Warning: Very Graphic!) We've decided to throw our support behind our Elephant friends by offering domain transfers at a price where we actually lose money. Show your protest by saying BYEBYEGD again and transfer your domains to Namecheap for $4.99 for the next 24 hours through 11:59pm EST on 3/31/11 (limit 10 per user, valid for all com/net/org domains). On top of that, we'll donate $1 for each transfer to Save The Elephants at http://www.savetheelephants.org/ http://www.savetheelephants.org/ Use coupon code BYEBYEGD and let's help the Elephants together! Regards, Team Namecheap"
          • kolektiv 16y ago
            NameCheap are an ex-client (obvious disclaimer) back when they were a lot smaller than they are these days. They were a decent bunch and while always on the ball with marketing, I can imagine there being some genuine feeling behind this - they weren't the type to stick branded caps on African villagers, that's for sure.
      • apsurd 16y ago
  • citricsquid 16y ago
    Yes, it seems a large number of people are comparing our own countries way of life to the way of life in another country. We might go and admire elephants in zoos, but for some countries they're a PITA. Some people might think the way we (the "west") exterminate cock roaches and stuff is bs. Different cultures etc.
  • andre 16y ago
    And there are already too many elephants in South Africa: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7700606 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7700606
    • malvim 16y ago
      That might well be true, but is it not Zimbabwe we're talking about here? I know they're neighbors, but that doesn't mean they face the same exact problems.
  • technomancy 16y ago
    > I'm certainly not moving my domains over this. Godaddy's got plenty of other atrocities higher on my list, like the usability of their web panel.
  • kreek 16y ago
    It's not the hunting that offends me. It's the GoDaddy hats during the slaughter.
    • dpcan 16y ago
      The butcher at my grocery store wears a coat with the company name on it while he grounds up my hamburger.
      • kreek 16y ago
        That's cool, so does mine, and I have zero problem with that. However, GoDaddy is not it the elephant butchering business. Slapping their hats on people butchering an elephant strikes me as a crass marketing attempt (even for them).
        • dpcan 16y ago
          That's a good point. But do you think they knew that this was going to happen when they handed out the hats?
  • mhd 16y ago
    While I agree that this certainly isn't the worst action of a CEO ever (nor this year or probably this day), I can understand the outrage a bit. First of all, controlling your public image is a good idea, most of the time. Unless you want to go totally over the top and take it too a Donal Trump level. Hunting probably belongs in the same class as politics, religion and sexuality: Don't talk about it too much. Second, it's hunting in Africa. Trying to look like you're the protector of a poor village there is going to bring back things like the "White Man's Burden" into the mind of people reading and watching this. Not a good idea, part deux. Never mind that shooting elephants is a last-ditch effort. As far as I know there are lots of other ways to drive them off, maybe not as easy (and "entertaining") as just shooting them. On the other hand, it's the GoDaddy CEO. Not exactly a brand with a good publicity anyway, and they barely need it. Enough people go there because they like to save money and/or don't know any competitors. Regarding needs for good publicity, they're probably somewhere between McDonalds and Monsanto.
    • jonhendry 16y ago
      And it's supporting the government of Zimbabwe, some of the worst on the continent.
  • illumin8 16y ago
    I found it somewhat ironic that the villagers standing around cutting meat off the elephant seemed to do more damage by trampling the crops than the elephants did. Look at the last part of the video... between the elephants, hunters, and the entire village fighting over the meat, the poor farmers crops don't stand a chance.
• cshenoy 16y ago
  While I respect your opinions in support of Parsons, I'm going to have to disagree with you on a lot of your arguments. >Bob Parsons has always run his company the way he wants, and he has particular freedom to do so since he has zero investors and is the sole owner Parsons does have the freedom to do what he likes but there are consequences to those actions. No one is questioning his freedom to do what he chooses. > He does certain things for shock value... True but I think killing an elephant and then posting a video about it is a bit different than showing scantily clad women dancing on the hood of a convertible. Both can be equally demeaning and morally questionable to certain parts of the population but let's be real here, killing an "innocent animal" is much more controversial than what is shown on TV almost every night. > Slaughtering an elephant might offend some of your sensibilities, but hunting in Africa is wide spread and as long as the elephant is not endangered, I don't think your outrage has a leg to stand on. Not sure if you read the article but Jacques specifically states there's a clear difference between a rich dude shooting the Elephant and a native Zimbabwean game warden doing it to protect his crops (which btw, there are many other ways of going about that than shooting it). The psychology behind the former doing it can be extremely powerful (and enraging) compared to the latter. > There are much worse things going on in America's food industry then this. Agreed. But that's missing the point. > I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted. I'd assume this statement was more offensive to vegetarians than watching that video. I'd assume that b/c I am one.
  • randallsquared 16y ago
    Both can be equally demeaning and morally questionable to certain parts of the population but let's be real here, killing an "innocent animal" is much more controversial than what is shown on TV almost every night. In a culture where steakhouses dot the roadsides, it seems odd to assert that killing an "innocent animal" is controversial at all. In some US locality where vegetarians make up the vast majority of the population, maybe, but does a place like that even exist? I haven't seen the video; I'm just speaking to that one sentence, really.
    • adolph 16y ago
      Dumbo = innocent; Elsie = delicious;
• fistofjohnwayne 16y ago
  >I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted. I think you're confusing vegetarians with people who dig frugality.
  • nhangen 16y ago
    Exactly. Vegetarians have problems with killing...period.
    • fenfir 16y ago
      That's not true. Vegetarians have a problem eating meat, hence the vege- prefix. I'm a vegetarian and have no problem with killing, especially for food. I'm just not going to eat meat.
      • chc 16y ago
        From context, it is clear that he's talking about people who are vegetarians for moral reasons (as are most people when they say "vegetarians believe X," since obviously if you're not a vegetarian for ideological reasons, no ideology can be inferred from your vegetarianism).
        • nhangen 16y ago
          Thanks, you are correct.
    • mikx 16y ago
      Hitler was a vegetarian
      • jarin 16y ago
        Well there you go. Close thread.
    • lwhi 16y ago
      You could choose to be a vegetarian because you disagree with factory farming and the industrialization of the meat industry. You could become a vegetarian because you don't like the texture of meat. All 'vegetarian' infers is dietary choice. The reasons for becoming one can vary greatly.
• dr_ 16y ago
  It's not so much about slaughtering the elephant as it is exploitation of the villagers to promote his company. It's like he's saying to them "Fine. I'll help you. I'll get rid of this elephant and save your crops and even feed you for a day or two, but you will have to wear my hats when you slaughter it". If this is more a philanthropic gesture, are the hats necessary? Should Bill Gates require every kid who is saved from malaria wear Microsoft t-shirts?
  • dpcan 16y ago
    Really? You think that's how it went down? Isn't it more likely that he handed out the hats as a nice gesture to the locals, and he had no idea those same people would soon attack the dead carcass and start handing out its flesh?
    • stellar678 16y ago
      Yeah, well somebody definitely made the editing decision to include that nice shiny, well-framed shot of the guy wearing a GoDaddy hat. So whether the decision came before or after, they seem to be happy about it...
• sunchild 16y ago
  It's not offensive to "vegetarians" – it's offensive to people who care about living beings.
  • chc 16y ago
    If you're offended by the practice of killing living beings for food, but you're not a vegetarian, what you are is simply inconsistent.
    • lukeschlather 16y ago
      Sunchild didn't say anything about killing living beings for food. Only that as a person who cares about living beings, this seems offensive. You're assuming a very specific value system on the basis of a single, vague axiom.
    • alinajaf 16y ago
      Hate to pick nits, but you mean living animals. Plants are alive too.
    • sunchild 16y ago
      You're putting words in my mouth there. There's killing in the name of hunger, and then there's killing in the name of sport. I don't give a shit how much PR GoDaddy wraps around this story (hungry villagers, elephants on a rampage to destroy crops, funding other wildlife preserves, etc.), this is killing for sport. There's no valid need to kill this animal. If the villagers themselves had taken care of it (or if a game warden had culled the animal as part of a considered program that benefits both human and elephant populations), I may feel differently.
• n8agrin 16y ago
  I don't see how vegetarianism even plays a part in this discussion. I'm not a vegetarian, but this offends me. I'm offended by Parson's bravado and his claim that "Of everything I do this is the most rewarding." Parson kills an animal under the guise of crop protection and to feed a village. Were I watching a local hunt for this elephant to feed their family I would feel that the death was justified. But we're really just watching a rich westerner tramp around in the dark so he can fire a gun. Is this really the most rewarding thing Parson could think to do for local villagers in Zimbabawe? And even if so, I would expect some more humility from someone who claimed their actions were so noble.
  • Joakal 16y ago
    You are going to be offended that some of the conservations in Africa are maintained by 'rich westerner' hunters who do not want to see the animals gone in order to preserve hunting.
    • n8agrin 16y ago
      If "conservation" means breeding wild animals in what is essentially captivity so that "rich westerners" can pay lots of money to go around and shoot them for the sake of shooting them, then you're absolutely right, I am going to be offended.
  • d2 16y ago
    What offends me is the godaddy baseball caps. As a customer I feel like I'm going on Bob's trip with him in full support of what he's doing.
  • tedjdziuba 16y ago
    So if the elephant were dead by the hand of a poor African, it would be okay in your eyes? Income seems like an arbitrary factor to determine whether or not it is morally acceptable to kill an animal.
    • alexqgb 16y ago
      Not arbitrary at all. As soon as large sums of money are involved, the question goes from one of pure necessity to one that tries to "balance" a lack of necessity against the promise of an easy buck. Moral Hazard 101.
• logjam 16y ago
  I find your reasoning faulty. Frankly, I think it's you without a leg to stand on. Tu quoque much? Murder, child abuse, blah blah, is widespread everywhere as well. Arguing this is somehow justifiable because something is "widespread" makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. And implying that Parson's gutless little stunt is justified simply because this is great for his company puts you squarely in the ends justify the means camp. Inhabiting that miserable landscape, you and he will not mind when I declare open season and cull a few company CEOs and feed a whole village, too. Would you then say that's actually a good thing, too? It's not like we'd be wasting the fucking meat.
• wheels 16y ago
  I have no problems with killing and eating animals. There are 1.5 billion cattle on this planet. Elephants, however, have been hunted from a population of 5-10 million a century ago to around 600,000 today and are now a threatened species. Do you really not see the difference between one and the other?
  • xiaoma 16y ago
    No, I'm not sure if I do. The pain cattle feels is no less pleasant than that elephants experience. The lives they lead in captivity so that we may eat them are almost certainly hellish compared to those that elephants live. In essence not only are they killed, but they're bred and forced to live torturous lives just for the purpose of being killed. How exactly does a greater world-wide population of one's species lower the value of one's life? Is it based on some cutoff beyond which extinction is assured? Or is it linear?Does maximizing the number of species on the planet really trump all concerns of suffering? If so, this logic would also somewhat weaken the value of the life of a dog (300 million) in comparison to that of a cat (200 million)? And what about the value of your life or mine? There are 6 billion of our species. Personally, I find it very hard to justify both eating animal flesh and outrage at animal killing. On occasion, I have an uneasy feeling that centuries from now humanity will look upon our current practices in a similar way as we look upon slavery... or cannibalism.
• nowarninglabel 16y ago
  Was with you until your stab at vegetarians. I'm a vegetarian, I'm not an animal rights activists. This is like seeing a change going in the Ubuntu distribution and saying it might offend Linux kernel developers. In other words, it's misinformed at best, and a worthless and argumentative statement at worst.
• alexqgb 16y ago
  Pro Tip: Actual dissent requires being on-topic. And that means paying enough attention to know what the topic actually is. Had you actually read the OP, you'd have understood that the crux of the criticism has to do with mindless participation in an obviously bad system. That is, a system that turns a necessary but easily abused task into a profit center - thereby ensuring that it will be stretched to utterly unnecessary proportions. It had nothing to do with hunting in general, or being a vegetarian in particular. For the record, there's (a lot) more to the issue than a few meals. Even in the limited areas where elephant populations are not highly endangered, there's still substantial controversy around any practice that allows the ivory market to legitimately revive itself, since it not only provides cover for black-market ivory, it also fuels the kind of demand that leads to increased poaching in places where elephants remain truly endangered. You should also know that what you saw on that video is the exception, not the rule. In the all-too-common cases where elephants are killed illegally, any stray documentary crews would also be killed, with all the bodies left to rot. The same goes for rhinos, tigers, and other magnificent creatures unfortunate enough to have one or two body parts valuable only to chronically egotistical douchebags. Assuming that being thoughtful enough to read isn't too much trouble, you can start to educate yourself by considering this: http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/elephants/african_elephant.php http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/elephant...
  • d2 16y ago
    Parsons hunting Leopard in Zimbabwe in 2009 with some propaganda at the start of the video on why killing leopard is a good thing: http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501 http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501 As a citizen of a southern African country I can tell you that A) The educated locals are disgusted by this kind of hunting for sport as opposed to food and B) I can assure you that the "foreign currency" that it supposedly brings in is not converted to Zim dollars and spent on the local economy.
    • alexqgb 16y ago
      Upvoted for pointing out that any marginal program promoted by Zimbabwean officials citing "benefits to the local economy" is utter bullshit. If any of those officials actually cared about the local economy (or actually intended to let the money reach it), they wouldn't have demolished those economies with their utterly unrestrained corruption and graft. Honestly, believing propaganda like that makes you look as naive as the people who believe that the wives of abusive husbands "just happen to keep falling down the stairs."
• buckwild 16y ago
  Great points, but there are a lot more dangerous things out there to sorghum than a couple of elephants. Elephants are big animals and they would have scared off a number of smaller, possibly more dangerous critters. shock value or not (and even if he did do the right thing), he still comes off as a dick.
• GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
  1) Read the OP 2) He could have donated money he spent on the expedition to feed that village. 3) He could have relocated the elephants. They are called tranqs, it won't take one, but it'll take a few and get the elephant down. This is just an excuse for a rich person to brag about killing an endangered specie with a gun. OOOO SKILL. If he did it with his bare hands, then I would applaud.