Post Reply
Page 19 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 6:50PM #181
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,095

Apr 13, 2012 -- 5:39PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 5:13PM, Girlchristian wrote:


What about the regular ol' hunters that eat the animals they kill and share the meat with their families? THEY are really the best representation. You focus on extremes and condemn everyone by the extremes.




You obviously missed the ironic symbolism of "man" needing to hide behind bushes or use contraptions like the teeth of a steel leghold trap to kill what "he" believes is inferior to himself.


Nonetheless, what you wrote is clearly a matter of personal opinion.  "Regulare ol' hunters" are not the best representation of hunting, they are the best representation of cruelty.   People hunt because they enjoy it, not because they "have" to do it, hard as they might think it is.  That they might like the meat of their "kill" is a secondary side-issue to the primary function of recreation/entertainment.


It's far more honorable to buy one's meat in a grocery store, I'm sure...


That you don't condemn these practices, doesn't mean I'm not supposed to. 


You're right, I don't condemn them and you're free to do so. That doesn't mean that condemning and judging hunters is 'right.'


There are online petitions out there to get Josh Bransford not only fired from his forest service job, but to charge him with animal cruelty, and if convicted, it might even work out that he'd be prevented from possessing a gun that he could use to hurt animals or people.  Just google his name to find them


IMO, he should be fired.


As I already said to mytmouse, if hunters themselves are going to hide behind the "it's not my concern" when hunters do detestable things, they shouldn't be surprised when those who ARE concerned work to get some of their behaviors regulated.

Except you, Solf, and Arielg don't want regulation. You want an all out ban on hunting.





"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 7:12PM #182
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Apr 13, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 5:39PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 5:13PM, Girlchristian wrote:


What about the regular ol' hunters that eat the animals they kill and share the meat with their families? THEY are really the best representation. You focus on extremes and condemn everyone by the extremes.




You obviously missed the ironic symbolism of "man" needing to hide behind bushes or use contraptions like the teeth of a steel leghold trap to kill what "he" believes is inferior to himself.


Nonetheless, what you wrote is clearly a matter of personal opinion.  "Regulare ol' hunters" are not the best representation of hunting, they are the best representation of cruelty.   People hunt because they enjoy it, not because they "have" to do it, hard as they might think it is.  That they might like the meat of their "kill" is a secondary side-issue to the primary function of recreation/entertainment.


It's far more honorable to buy one's meat in a grocery store, I'm sure...


That you don't condemn these practices, doesn't mean I'm not supposed to. 


You're right, I don't condemn them and you're free to do so. That doesn't mean that condemning and judging hunters is 'right.'


There are online petitions out there to get Josh Bransford not only fired from his forest service job, but to charge him with animal cruelty, and if convicted, it might even work out that he'd be prevented from possessing a gun that he could use to hurt animals or people.  Just google his name to find them


IMO, he should be fired.


As I already said to mytmouse, if hunters themselves are going to hide behind the "it's not my concern" when hunters do detestable things, they shouldn't be surprised when those who ARE concerned work to get some of their behaviors regulated.

Except you, Solf, and Arielg don't want regulation. You want an all out ban on hunting.








Good answers well presented, GC.




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 7:36PM #183
solfeggio
Posts: 9,079

Hunting is savagery in the name of tradition.  It is hypocrisy in the name of conservation.  And it is killing in the name of sport.  People who kil for sport are despicable human beings.


So, yes, I would like to see an all-out ban on hunting.  And there are very good reasons for this.


1 - It is not an effective method to manage and control wildlife.


2 - Hunters kill the strongest animals, changing the genetic balance in the group. 


3 - Hunters kill mature males, leaving a disproprotionate number of females, impacting the social structure of the group.


4 - Large numbers of animals are wounded but not killed, and they run off to die a slow, agonising death.


5 - The vast majority of people do not need to hunt in order to provide food for their families.


6 - Animals, like wolves, that mate for life and live in close-knit family units, are devastated when a member of this unit is killed by hunters.


www.peta.org/issues/Wildlife/why-sport-h...


76.74.242.170/~anima810/wp-content/uploa...


Hunting is simply a socially-accepted way to kill something.  More often than not, hunters kill for fun.  What makes hunters think they have the right to take another creature's life?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 7:49PM #184
solfeggio
Posts: 9,079

However, some of us are actually trying to make a few philosophical points here. 


Ariel posits the question that humans take it for granted that they should be allowed to decide which creatures should be allowed to live, and which to die.  And this is known as 'managing' the 'game.'


Hasn't mytmouse been complaining over and over again in his posts that the rest of us - the Nazis - don't understand this concept?


BTW: Calling people Nazis who ask that our fellow animals be given the same right to live is rather a misnomer.  Nazis advocated an authoritarian, hierarchical government, as opposed to a democracy.  The wanted socioeconomic controls and suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.


Obviously, this does not describe people who are just trying to make the point that other species deserve our consideration, and who have never, ever mentioned using either terror or censorship to do this.


- At any rate -


Ariel has also noted that the point of view of the anti-hunters is based on empathy.  And that is it in a nutshell.  Empathy means making a concerted effort to understand, or at least identify, with another's situation and feelings.


If the person with the gun actually tried to imagine what it would be like to be caught in a leghold trap, to be poisoned, or to be shot, we could assume s/he would refrain from doing this.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 7:57PM #185
solfeggio
Posts: 9,079

...to continue with ariel's points:


Ariel has noted that humans ascribe to themselves the 'right' to 'manage' other forms of life, from this we can conclude that this would mean, then, that humans feel that they really are above other life forms.


I would add that this would imply that humans feel that they are also the most intelligent of all life forms.  But this has never been proven.  And why do people feel that they must be 'above' other animals anyway?


As well -


Rabello has summed up a lot of the hyperbole put forth by (mostly) mytmouse with the statement that this whole 'management' debate is just a euphemism for killing something on behalf of special interest groups, meaning the ranchers and the hunters.


And that's really what all of this is all about, isn't it?


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 8:22PM #186
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

What species would you suggest as more intelligent then man?  Perhaps the cetaceans but since they are  nonmanipulative it would be hard to prove unless we can establish full communication.  Other than that, I am aware of no land animal that comes really close.  What animal other than man intentionally tries to create beauty or even appreciates it?


In any case, intelligence or what man is the apex predator on the planet and barring a cosmic disaster or a man induced disaster that is unlikely to change.  In fact man is such a powerful predator that he has to both control his numbers and his predatory behavior to avoid wiping out his prey and causing his own failure.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 8:43PM #187
rabello
Posts: 20,782

Apr 13, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:


It's far more honorable to buy one's meat in a grocery store, I'm sure...




That would depend on who is doing the buying, and on what they are buying, of course.  One can hardly compare buying cow meat at a grocery store, bad as that is, to the wholesale slaughter and/or torture of wolves just because some cynical/callous Congresspersons attached a rider to non-related appropriations bill to give the states the go-ahead.  How many people would you say eat wolf meat compared to cow meat or even venision?


Apr 13, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:


You're right, I don't condemn them and you're free to do so. That doesn't mean that condemning and judging hunters is 'right.'




How one feels about this controversy isn't a matter of being right or wrong.   I freely admit I condemn the forest service employee and all those who participated in the slow torture of a wolf.  That is what is wrong.  Either people will try to do something about it, or they will tell themselves "it's wrong to condemn and judge" or "it's not my concern" or "so sad/too bad". 


Apr 13, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:


IMO, he should be fired.




Well, he's not going to get fired.  Want a couple of links to online petitions where you can demand that the Forest Service dismiss him?   I can share.


Apr 13, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Except you, Solf, and Arielg don't want regulation. You want an all out ban on hunting.




We are certainly smart enough to know that hunting isn't going to get banned, not in our lifetime, not in our children or grandchildren's lifetime.   That doesn't mean that we should look the other way at the free-for-all that the gun lobby and the special interests support.


Do you think 150 animals statewide, out of over 1,000 that got repopulated is good "management" practice?   Why have that many been killed?   Do that many people eat wolf meat?  What if a parasite or infectious epidemic hits the gray wolves of the northern Rockies?  Do you think in such a scenario 150 or less is enough to sustain the population of wolves past the crisis?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 8:45PM #188
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Apr 13, 2012 -- 7:57PM, solfeggio wrote:


...to continue with ariel's points:


Ariel has noted that humans ascribe to themselves the 'right' to 'manage' other forms of life, from this we can conclude that this would mean, then, that humans feel that they really are above other life forms.


I would add that this would imply that humans feel that they are also the most intelligent of all life forms.  But this has never been proven.  And why do people feel that they must be 'above' other animals anyway?


As well -


Rabello has summed up a lot of the hyperbole put forth by (mostly) mytmouse with the statement that this whole 'management' debate is just a euphemism for killing something on behalf of special interest groups, meaning the ranchers and the hunters.


And that's really what all of this is all about, isn't it?


 


 




You have not proven anything either except how you "feel". Your crusade here has convinced no one. You have formed a sense of morality based on your preferences. Others have senses of morality based upon different input.


No one in my family has hunted for more than 50 years, but I have no reason to try to control what others find reasonable. Every society has miscreants--bet that apllies in NZ, too.

(And Rabello does not write well in deliberation--too much scolding and no real handle on "wassup".)


Human beings do control most of this world, for better or for worse. We're a cagey lot. And we have thumbs--joke from an American ad for bacon treats for dogs. Most of us are well-aware of the ills of the world and do our part to alleviate them. Many of us are also happy in our own skins and enjoy life.


You've never answered--but what gives you joy everyday? I see so much good in so many people.


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 9:02PM #189
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Rabello


"That doesn't mean that we should look the other way at the free-for-all that the gun lobby and the special interests support."


I have no use for the NRA. My husband who had beeen a member since his early teens quit them and eschewed their politics in the mid-nineties. He was retired Federal law enforcement and an active auditor of state prisons with the ACA. In retirement he also worked with juvenile holding facilities, making certin they received needed services.


This is not a discussion about the NRA. That just clouds issues. My main concern is with too many hand-guns abroad in the US in the hands of non-reliable sorts. I differ with the NRA on this.

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 9:50PM #190
arielg
Posts: 9,116

In any case, intelligence or what man is the apex predator on the planet and barring a cosmic disaster or a man induced disaster that is unlikely to change.  In fact man is such a powerful predator that he has to both control his numbers and his predatory behavior to avoid wiping out his prey and causing his own failure.



It is precisely this superior intelligence that allows man to rise above his animal nature and have a perspective of life beyond survival. And to know right and wrong.


Animals do not know about empathy, love, forgiveness, right and wrong.  They just follow their instincts which are aimed at survival and procreation.  Because they follow instincts, they do not have free will and  personal desires.  And because of this, they act automatically in harmony with a larger scheme of things and cannot do wrong, because wrong is a creation of the self awareness or the  ego of man.


There is nothing supèrior about the  intelligence of a predator.   It is just part of the  animal nature.  It is not just to a be a more successful predator that man developped this intelligence: it is to go beyond it. That is the message of the sages of all ages.


Unfortunately, most humans never develop beyond their animal nature, so they remain very sophisticated animals.  They have the option. Free will in a nutshell. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 19 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook