- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by Wulebgr"The sport comes in trying to think like a creature with a brain no bigger than my fingernail. "
Humans must embrace their place in the food chain. We are born hunters, although there is no hunting need or opportunity in the urbanized part of the world.
Hunting wild animals is the woods is not sport because of some sort of equality between hunter and hunted in the capacity for killing the other. It is sport because humans are at a significant disadva ...[text shortened]... t stand up in defense of wild places--including and perhaps especially the ANWR--are hypocrites.
"When successful at fooling a trout, it tries all sorts of maneuvers to get off mu hook, while I try to bring it close. "
So, in order to hunt, you have to be stupid. That's funny.
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by WulebgrI can see where having a hook in your mouth is unharmful.
Most off the time I do not take it out of the water, but release it unharmed
Can't you just go challenge your neighbor to a few beers, to dumb you up, then a hardcore game of tug-o-war? Same effect.
one could argue that fish being as low as they are on the evolutionary ladder and not having the mammal nervous system they don't suffer from having a hook in their mouths. in fact a released fish is quite "happy" and maybe he will even get some rudimentary experience and avoid a future fisher that might cook him instead of releasing him.
however i don't agree that hunting rifles level the playing field between the animal and the so called human. yes, we are at a disadvantage when it comes to our sensory faculties. but some of us are significantly smarter than animals and might make up for it. but it takes ignorance and hypocrisy to call sport shooting a bear from safety with a hunting rifle. there is no risk.
our ancestors hunted bears for food or to defend themselves. we hunt to satisfy our bloodlust. and i am not sure that some of the hunters would not hunt some homeless dudes if it were legal.
in my opinion hunting is useless, wasteful and inhumane. at least i eat my hamburgerized cow, i don't kill it so i can hang its head on my wall.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere is no credible definition of sport that requires risk. The only hypocrisy here is your flawed definition.
but it takes ignorance and hypocrisy to call sport shooting a bear from safety with a hunting rifle. there is no risk.
Is golf a sport only because of the danger that you might get beaned by a golf ball?
Is beach volleyball only a sport because the young women that play will be perceived as objects of lust?
Is the risk of crippling injury the major factor in calling football a sport?
Those that think there is safety anywhere in bear country have spent too little time in bear country and best stay away from me when I'm there. Your ignorance invites danger in such places.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
one could argue that fish being as low as they are on the evolutionary ladder
You must have come here from the Spirituality Forum because that's where such anti-science reigns. Evolution is no ladder.
Originally posted by SJ247I was speaking for fly anglers, among which I belong. Not for hunters who chase creatures with much larger brains. I no longer hunt.
"The sport comes in [b]trying to think like a creature with a brain no bigger than my fingernail. "
"When successful at fooling a trout, it tries all sorts of maneuvers to get off mu hook, while I try to bring it close. "
So, in order to hunt, you have to be stupid. That's funny.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgrthere is also no definition of sport that requires the termination of some life
There is no credible definition of sport that requires risk. The only hypocrisy here is your flawed definition.
Is golf a sport only because of the danger that you might get beaned by a golf ball?
Is beach volleyball only a sport because the young women that play will be perceived as objects of lust?
Is the risk of crippling injury the major fac the Spirituality Forum because that's where such anti-science reigns. Evolution is no ladder.
Edit: the risk in sports means the other team, competitor might win or at least has the same chances at winning. and/or is a willing participant. one doesn't enter by force into another person home and forces him into a boxing match.
you get it now, sparkie?
evolution is no ladder? well if you can't take a metaphor, maybe i should explain. fish are less evolved than mammals. therefore by this notion fish can be put before mammals in a queue the same way i put 1 before 2 in another queue. and i made my queue resemble a ladder to simplify. are you getting the picture now? or would you like my ladder to be a tree? would that agree with you more?
Originally posted by ZahlanziI already told you they have small brains, but you want to explain the same to me with lies about evolution. Fish have been on the planet longer than primates: how are they less evolved.
there is also no definition of sport that requires the termination of some life
Edit: the risk in sports means the other team, competitor might win or at least has the same chances at winning. and/or is a willing participant. one doesn't enter by force into another person home and forces him into a boxing match.
you get it now, sparkie?
evolution i ...[text shortened]... ing the picture now? or would you like my ladder to be a tree? would that agree with you more?
When I tossed a fly about last Sunday, the fish won. I couldn't raise a one.
Originally posted by Wulebgris this post a joke? or you are not functioning properly today?
I already told you they have small brains, but you want to explain the same to me with lies about evolution. Fish have been on the planet longer than primates: how are they less evolved.
When I tossed a fly about last Sunday, the fish won. I couldn't raise a one.
"Fish have been on the planet longer than primates: how are they less evolved"
you are joking, right? because this just shouts stupidity.
well assuming you are joking, i have a new one.
bacteria has been on the planet longer than primates: how are they less evolved?
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt's funny that you equate large brains with degree of evolution but will not accept the place of humans as natural predators that must kill things
is this post a joke? or you are not functioning properly today?
"Fish have been on the planet longer than primates: how are they less evolved"
you are joking, right? because this just shouts stupidity.
well assuming you are joking, i have a new one.
bacteria has been on the planet longer than primates: how are they less evolved?
The issue is how we evolved, not how much or how far and bacteria can still bring us down.
Is hunting bacteria immoral because we are a superior creature?
I used to get a big charge out of hunting, now as I grow older I don't feel so good about it. I suspect the urge to kill and dominate is just part of the human (male?) condition, especially when we're younger. While I feel badly about shooting bunnies, I'd still like to kill some of you right now. Slowly.
Originally posted by ZahlanziSurely, as long as you eat what you catch, then there's no problem?
It was asked why Pallin wants to hunt.
I ask why would anyone want to hunt. I ask for pros and cons.
Hunters say it is a sport. I argue that in sports there has to be fair-play. Where is the fairplay in shooting a bear with a scope rifle from 500m away. Where is the sport in shooting a defenseless bird?
In my view hunting is useless. But if you ...[text shortened]... the previous kill.
Add to the above rules or argue why hunting is good the way it is.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamAwwww.... bless your cotton socks...
I used to get a big charge out of hunting, now as I grow older I don't feel so good about it. I suspect the urge to kill and dominate is just part of the human (male?) condition, especially when we're younger. While I feel badly about shooting bunnies, I'd still like to kill some of you right now. Slowly.
Originally posted by Wulebgryou seem to not get it. or maybe you haven't read my original post.
It's funny that you equate large brains with degree of evolution but will not accept the place of humans as natural predators that must kill things
The issue is how we evolved, not how much or how far and bacteria can still bring us down.
Is hunting bacteria immoral because we are a superior creature?
because they have small brains and undeveloped nervous system, they might not feel so much pain or maybe not at all. and i said one would argue as such to justify that fishing is more moral than hunting especially if you catch and release . not necessarily me. but you wish to argue what you would like at some point not what i said.
i never equated small brains with less evolved, as i never said hunting bacteria is immoral because we are more evolved. we are more evolved than any creature on this planet, is eating cow immoral because of it?(some would say that it is immoral nonetheless).
we are omnivores. as such we require some meat for a balanced diet. however would you eat meat if the cow talked to you? if cows were an advanced civilisation(not so advanced as to be able to defend themselves) would you kill sentient beings, especially if you have alternatives? Do you enjoy chimp meat or dolphin?
hunters(the modern kind, not the african tribe that hunts to survive) don't kill out of necessity. they kill for trophies. they kill because they like the feel of a gun and the power it gives, some kill because they feel more close to the ancient predatory human to which again i say, grab a knife and face your prey honorably.
as chris rock said, nowadays hunters go hunting on a full stomach. it says a lot about what hunting means now.
Originally posted by Sam The Shamurges are natural and quite recommended. as long as they don't materialize 😀
I used to get a big charge out of hunting, now as I grow older I don't feel so good about it. I suspect the urge to kill and dominate is just part of the human (male?) condition, especially when we're younger. While I feel badly about shooting bunnies, I'd still like to kill some of you right now. Slowly.
it's better to fantasize about killing DSR than bursting unexpectedly at one point and fire an AK into a crowd.
try and play carmageddon or postal 2 😀 its great therapy
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmiryes, it should diminish the hunter wannabes dramatically.
Surely, as long as you eat what you catch, then there's no problem?
in my country there are sometimes organized hunts where fat politician bastards(sorry for the overstatement) hunted boars or bear who were chased by dozens of local people until exhaustion and pushed into a corner.
and then the mighty fatso got to make the shot and end the animal's suffering. sometimes the fatso missed and shot it into a non-vital organ, causing some more suffering.
nice, civilized creatures we hummies are, right?