Originally posted by ZahlanziFishing isn't fair either. So stop fishing...?
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 FabianFnasextremists would say yes, stop fishing and then stop eating meat then stop eating fish and only survive on plants. until other extremists-extremists will come and say don't eat plants because they are living organisms, eat only fruit or parts of the plant that leaves it alive.
Fishing isn't fair either. So stop fishing...?
i say let's just take one step at a time and make hunters hunt with just spears, bows and knife. i am confident the hunters will diminish considerably and it won't even look as if we are banning hunting. we are simply making it more challenging for the sake and concern of the hunters(wink wink)
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo why do you have to foist your ideas upon hunters? Seems to me if you don't agree with the idea of hunting, then don't hunt. Instead, you want to bully them into not hunting and you're willing to use the law to bludgeon hunters to that end.
extremists would say yes, stop fishing and then stop eating meat then stop eating fish and only survive on plants. until other extremists-extremists will come and say don't eat plants because they are living organisms, eat only fruit or parts of the plant that leaves it alive.
i say let's just take one step at a time and make hunters hunt with just spea ...[text shortened]... . we are simply making it more challenging for the sake and concern of the hunters(wink wink)
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziAs long as you maintain false dichotomies and stereotypes, you will misread and misrepresent everything I've said.
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.
I regret that I no longer hunt, not because I wish the head of an elk of moose on the wall of my den--I'm not defending trophy hunting, although I am defending some of the sporting aspects. The boar hunts that you're describing are considerably different from the sorts of hunting done in my part of the world: I'm about 1500 miles from Palin's Alaska, but close to an hour's drive from the town of her birth.
Most folks that hunt where I live enjoy the sport and they eat what they kill. They do not hunt on empty stomachs, but for some of them the meat they acquire contributes an economical supply of food. In many cases the cost of the meat is less than beef, and it is far more healthy. The taste is incomparable: wild meat has a rich and satisfying flavor. Even the beef of today is no comparison in flavor to the beef of thirty years ago (but that's another story).
The initial investment to get started in hunting is considerable, and it is possible to always spend enormous sums for gadgets and clothing, as well as guides and access to quality locales. Sport hunting can be notoriously inefficient as a means of acquiring food, if that is even desired by the hunter.
Hunting is a diverse enterprise. You've reduced it all to a peculiar form of sport hunting that you know. In my experience and observations, hunting has always been sport, but never only that. Your generalizations simply do not apply to the hunters that I know.
There's nothing economical about the fish I kill and eat. When I do kill and eat a trout, the cost per pound may approach $100. There's gas, and food, and fishing equipment, and license fees. I have thousands of dollars wrapped up in dead animal parts and yarns and Japanese and Norwegian steel for the purpose of fly tying. It costs me anywhere from a nickle (or less) to as much as $1.25 to tie one fly, and I tie hundreds. After the initial investment, the flies are cheap.
(I don't fish with bait, except when I do, and with bait, it is always 100% kill.)
I disagree with Sarah Palin's politics on almost every point, but I have no difficulty understanding her love of hunting and her taste for wild meat.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI know in Scotland, that if you want to go on a hunt, you have to be accompanied by a games keeper. If you don't kill the animal, the games keeper kills you.
yes, it should diminish the hunter wannabes dramatically.
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. s ...[text shortened]... -vital organ, causing some more suffering.
nice, civilized creatures we hummies are, right?
Or maybe the games keeper kills the injured animal. I'm not sure on that.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziStop hunting, because it's not fair.
extremists would say yes, stop fishing and then stop eating meat then stop eating fish and only survive on plants. until other extremists-extremists will come and say don't eat plants because they are living organisms, eat only fruit or parts of the plant that leaves it alive.
Stop fishing because it's not fair, of the same reason as above.
Stop the slaughter houses, because killing anymals there isn't fair, see above.
No mooses, no fish, no cows, no pigs, no chickens. You are only allowed to eat what you catch and kill yoursleves with your bare hands...
Why start with mooses? They are delishious...
Originally posted by FabianFnasHeads are the site of brains.
Stop hunting, because it's not fair.
Stop fishing because it's not fair, of the same reason as above.
Stop the slaughter houses, because killing anymals there isn't fair, see above.
No mooses, no fish, no cows, no pigs, no chickens. You are only allowed to eat what you catch and kill yoursleves with your bare hands...
Why start with mooses? They are delishious...
Cabbages have heads.
Therefore, cabbages are sentient beings.
Stop the wanton slaughter of vegetables
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo you'd rather animals die an even slower, more agonizing death by being pricked with bows? I personally think that hunting with rifle is much more "compassionate" than hunting with a bow.
extremists would say yes, stop fishing and then stop eating meat then stop eating fish and only survive on plants. until other extremists-extremists will come and say don't eat plants because they are living organisms, eat only fruit or parts of the plant that leaves it alive.
i say let's just take one step at a time and make hunters hunt with just spea ...[text shortened]... . we are simply making it more challenging for the sake and concern of the hunters(wink wink)
Life is not about fairness. Life is as it is.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwell by that logic you could argue that if you don't like to litter, then don't litter. you shouldn't bully anyone into not littering and don't use the law to bludgeon litterers.
So why do you have to foist your ideas upon hunters? Seems to me if you don't agree with the idea of hunting, then don't hunt. Instead, you want to bully them into not hunting and you're willing to use the law to bludgeon hunters to that end.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour argument is undone by the fact that we all agree that littering is bad, however, we're not all in agreement that hunting is bad. Besides, only a very small minority hunts, as one must overcome many barriers to participate (overcoming popular opinion or even moral revulsion that killing animals is wrong, obtaining licenses and permits, purchasing equipment, transport to the wilds), whereas any fool may litter.
well by that logic you could argue that if you don't like to litter, then don't litter. you shouldn't bully anyone into not littering and don't use the law to bludgeon litterers.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo why do you have to foist your ideas upon homosexuals? Seems to me if you don't agree with the idea of homosexuality, then don't be gay. Instead you want to bully them into not "hunting" and you're willing to use the [understanding you have of a moral] law to "bludgeon' "hunters" to that end.
So why do you have to foist your ideas upon hunters? Seems to me if you don't agree with the idea of hunting, then don't hunt. Instead, you want to bully them into not hunting and you're willing to use the law to bludgeon hunters to that end.