hunting is like abortion - if ya believe it's wrong dont do it, but dont tell me what to do. n/t

:hide:

Have you eaten fetus sausage?

He loves it.

Shoot to kill.

People Eating Tasty Animals.



:hide:

that acronym is no longer original, witty, or funny at all.

:thumbsdown:


please come up with something new.

:rofl:

:rofl:

and it's the first time I've heard it.

People Killing Stupid Hunters.

See, it's pretty obnoxious and unfunny when people do the same thing to you, isn't it?

it doesn't mean that much to me,
to mean that much to you.

(thanx N.Young):hi:

Not many DUers seem to hold their tongues when it comes to those subjects, do they?

:nuke:

MKJ

But nobody's saying they should be outlawed, or says a Walmart customer who gets shot had it coming.

I just think it's a pretty nasty thing to do.

Look away!!!! I'm hideous!!!!

The pain is identical. The mother's pain is identical.

watch Bambi again for goodness sakes!

(1) Brilliantly sarcastic, I applaud you.
(2) You're a vegan.
(3) You're a complete hypocrite who screams about making deer hunting illegal while picking dead cow out of your teeth.

bigger caging spaces for veal calves and pigs. Animals eat animals. That is part of nature. Killing for sport is a terrible thing. Animals feel and suffer exactly as we do. It is our job to protect them, since we have taken over the earth. I think humans should be protecting all other species. Instead we wipe them off the planet. And the joy of killing? disgusting.

It was late and I was frustrated and shouldn't have lashed out at someone who was agreeing with me on this thread.

What you do is definitely admirable. Just something else to think about, I guess.

If animals eat one another to survive, I go hunting for, say, deer, take it home, cook and eat it; how is this any different?

Incidently, two things: A) With the exceptions of a rabbit when I was 17, I've never yet failed to make a single-shot kill and B) The deer I'm hunting live wild in Scotland.

So, if I hunt my own venison, the deer lives wild and dies instantly and painlessly. If I don't hunt my own venison, they grow up and are killed in factory farming conditions, we all know what they're like. Maybe it's just me but hunting seems like the fairer option.

Which is a world of difference.

Sounds like my grandmother talking about evolution: "God made the world and that's all I need to know."

Hence the term "fundie carnivore."

Sounds like Operation Rescue. Killing unborn babies is wrong because they feel pain, and it should be illegal.

Hence the term "fundie asshole."

I can also explain why I'm staunchly pro-choice using rational arguments, and not relying on the bible like said fundie assholes. I can also explain rationally why I feel that it's wrong for humans to inflict needless death on sentient creatures. Unlike fundies of either type, I don't use "that's just the way it is" type arguments.

They feel pain, therefore it should be illegal.

:shrug:

Did I not say I didn't think hunting should be made illegal?

Mea culpa.

:rofl:

... of how many animals are killed by farming combines every year?

But I bet it's quite a few half mice.

No need to repeat myself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2346709&mesg_id=2348900

But for you to say that vegans shouldn't bother because field animals are killed in the harvesting of food is like my criticizing you by saying that those local farms you buy your meat from still rely on oil to ship their products, contributing to our dependency on unstable foreign governments and to global warming.

Not quite. Your argument against the consumption of meat is not that it contributes to global warming, it is because you assert the killing of animals is morally wrong. The produce industry is single-handedly responsible for deaths of millions of animals, due to anything and everything between farming combines to pesticides to the vitamin supplements some vegans require to supplement their lack of protein intake. What difference does it make that these deaths are "collateral damage"? You are still supporting an industry you know to have zero regard for the livelihood of this planet's fauna.

If petroleum were to be replaced with a clean fuel, the meat industry would still exist. However, there is no way for the produce industry to avoid encroaching on animals' habitats, even less so if the whole country were to conform to your diet.

As far as the plants feel pain line, I've heard that so many times that I don't even bother anymore. If you want to go down that route, you might as well cut to the chase and tell me that Hitler was a vegetarian. You can save us both a lot of time.

Plants don't feel pain, as they lack a nervous system. That's nature. Ironically, nature also happens to be highly competitive. The survival of one species invariably hinges on the predation or competition with another species. You cannot exist without negatively impacting one of your furry neighbors. Your home has probably displaced a dozen or so birds, your neighborhood has invariably displaced a dozen or so deer, and your city has aided in the nigh destruction of the North American wolf population. The factory which makes your clothes has destroyed the habitat of dozens of creatures, as has the factory that made your car, your refrigerator, your oven, the car you drive, and so on. The aspirin you take when you get a headache was tested on animals, as are the antibiotics you take when you get an infection. The farms which grow your vegetables severely restrict the animals' habitats, and oftentimes rely on traps or poisons to keep animals from eating their crops.

In simply continuing your existence, you are killing animals.

By the way, I hate hunting and I am the proud companion of three cats, three turtles, a dog, and a cockatiel. This doesn't qualify my position, but it should make my appreciation of animals perfectly clear.

Just because I can't reduce my footprint to zero doesn't mean I shouldn't try. THAT'S all I was saying, and what I say to everyone who pulls the "animals died to make your vegetables" line.

We have evolved thumbs.

We invented and use guns.

( Gee- what other examples do we have where having guns= exploiting
those who don't?)

Therefore, for "sport and fun" we can blast the living shit out of other
animals, gut them, mount their heads on our walls and exclaim our superiority
over all other living creatures.

Fair fight? Here's a fair fight.

Or is it?



Mano a mano?- I don't think so!

They don't fight the bull, they kill it. They should throw the matador in with a bull fresh off the farm and arm the man with only a knife. Then it would be equal and even interesting to watch (albeit disgusting and gruesome.)

It would be horrible and gruesome to watch.

We are at a big disadvantage when faced with
many strong, physically superior animals.

... unless they screamed all the time for no reason.

- Jack Handy

Jack Handy - the philosopher
for this modern era.

:rofl:

There is a reliable source!!

my life, and would fel exactly the same as if someone tried to shoot your child.

Do tell.

DUers have absolutely NOTHING to say about Wal-Mart or SUVs.

For that matter, they have nothing to say about smoking. Or porn. Or Olive Garden.

Don't believe me? Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com

C'mon, it'll be fun.

It's useful for news, it allows me to kill time at work. I often see quite a bit of stimulating conversation here.

Unfortunately, this isn't one of them. It's a thread with an OP that is of dubious logic, and does nothing but encourage an onslaught of "K/R" and "I concur!". DU is an advocacy site, that's all people do here. I'd bet that myself and others wouldn't even care about politics as much as they do if they didn't attempt to advocate for something.

And yet when it comes to porn, meat-eating, smoking, etc. these subjects are somehow untouchable. Any advocacy for the side of the issue that is not popular here becomes "fascism" or "censorship" or people are just accused of being trolls.

Anyway, I'm sure you want to call me a troll or a freeper or whatever it is you kids are calling it these days, so just go ahead and get it over with. After all, my post count is low (HORRORS!!!!111), and I disagree with you (HOW DARE HE???!!!!!111). What else could I be? :eyes:

I'm not sure which side of these issues- porn, meat-eating, smoking, etc.- you think you're not able to advocate for. Personally, I think people should be able to make up their OWN minds when it comes to their own space and their own bodies; when their choices directly encroach on others then I think regulation comes into play.

For instance, I think it's totally legitimate for municipalities to regulate where people can smoke in indoor, enclosed public spaces- saying you have to go outside to smoke isn't the same thing as making it illegal; and I've never been called a troll for that.

As for porn, I think if consenting adults want to look at pictures of other consenting adults nude or fucking that's their right and business. Likewise, if consenting adults DON'T want to look at pictures of other consenting adults nude or fucking, no one should MAKE them watch porn. What they shouldn't have the right to do is censor OTHER people's entertainment choices.

Same with Gay Marriage- I think gay and lesbian citizens should have the right to get married. People who object to gay marriage should have the RIGHT to NOT get married to someone of the same gender. What they shouldn't have the right to do is tell gay people they've never met that they can't get married.

As for meat eating- I wholeheartedly support the right of vegans to NOT eat meat. My problem comes in when they try to control the diets of other people.

See a pattern, here? It can be summed up simply as the difference between these two sentences:

"I don't like X, so I don't do X"

and

"I don't like X so YOU don't do X".

I never quite got what the problem was with Olive Garden. Oh well.

As for Wal-Mart and SUVs, I don't think they should be illegal, either, although I think the fundamental trade imbalance that allows cheap shit from China (sold at Wal-Mart) made with slave labor and no environmental or safety standards needs to be addressed.

If I set up a table with vegan literature, is that advocacy or "forcing my beliefs?" If I protest a circus, is that advocacy or "forcing my beliefs?" If I campaign to make bars in my state smoke-free, is that advocacy or "forcing my beliefs?" If I try to point out the sexist, violent nature of most mainstream porn, is that advocacy or "forcing my beliefs?"

I can talk all day about animal rights issues, and you're free to go home and eat a steak. I can talk all day about the irresponsibility of driving a Hummer, but you're still free to do so. This is why I find the "censorship" or "forcing my beliefs down your throat" argument to be complete bullshit. There's a difference between discussing different viewpoints and assuming that someone is "forcing" you to do something simply because they disagree with you. I, and I would hope most people who care about animal right, environmental, and labor issues don't want to make meat-eating, driving SUVs, or shopping at Wal-Mart illegal. Anyone who DOES advocate that is a moron, because you can't legislate what are essentially cultural attitudes. What I would like to do is engage people who disagree with me so that they may think about how their actions affect others, both human and non-human, and hopefully make more responsible choices. If they choose not to, well I tried.

As far as "don't like x, don't do x," I stand by my opinion that it's a bullshit argument for anything. I can argue rationally about why I'm pro-choice, I can argue rationally about why I'm pro-marriage rights. I don't need to resort to simple-minded one-liners that only preach to the choir and don't actually engage someone who might disagree with me.

However, if you think you're automatically entitled universal acclaim, praise and gratitude for your "consciousness raising" efforts, you're mistaken. Jesus-drunk fundies think they're doing people a favor when they tell folks about the "good news" of Christianity, just like the PETA crowd when they preach about meat eating. Or the anti-porn people when they try to argue that consenting adults magically lose their ability to consent when they start screwing in front of a camera. The central conceit, of course, is that we know better than you.

And most people don't appreciate being preached at. That's my experience. When it comes to something like diet (personally, I haven't eaten red meat in years, and the overwhelming majority of my diet is plant based) I think that at the end of the day monitoring what is on one's own fork is far more productive than playing food police, finger-wagging at others over what they choose to eat.

Believing that you are specially tasked with 'fixing' the rest of the world is Sophomoric Solipsism, if you ask me. Of course, you're free to proseltyze all you want. And people are free to tell you to stuff a sock in it.

For the record, however, there are plenty of PETA folks who as committed to the central concept of granting rights under the 14th amendment to chickens and fish.. that is the end zone of the agenda, just as the core goal of the anti-choice movement is to grant rights under the 14th amendment to single cells. Similarly, denials notwithstanding, there is an outspoken gaggle of people here who think consenting adult porn should be illegal- that IS censorship, pure and simple.

But the bottom line? "Advocate" all you want; no one is going to stop you- but don't have a tantrum just because not everyone agrees with you on what constitutes a truly "progressive agenda".

and you said eloquently what i clumsily attempted.

:toast:

It's disappointing, because I thought this might actually go somewhere.

But I hope you'll sympathize with those poor Republicans who have to listen to you "preach" and "proselytize" and "finger-wag" about how they should vote Democratic. :eyes:

Where did I ask for "universal acclaim?" I just asked for a decent fucking discussion between people who may disagree.



So full of strawmen I don't even know where to begin. For starters, I'm not a member of PETA. Vegan does not equal PETA. It helps to understand your opposition before you begin arguing with them, because it's pretty clear at this point you have no idea what you're talking about.

Secondly, I resent being compared to a jesus-freak, because I've already told you that I can rationally explain how I came to conclusion that eating meat is wrong. I don't base it off the bible, or a "that's just the way it is" mentality, which is strangely what so many omnivores use to defend their meat-eating.

Thirdly, this thread isn't about porn. But it's no wonder so few people feel like engaging you on that discussion, since you come to it with such hostility and so many strawmen that's it's like arguing with a right-winger who starts the conversation with, "So why exactly do you hate America and freedom?"



More evidence that you spent the entire time reading my post thinking about what you were going to say next as opposed to actually understanding what I was saying. I think I pretty clearly explained the difference between "preaching" and discussing. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm preaching, anymore than you get preachy when you play the secular free-thinking role that you seem to relish. If we weren't both atheists, I'd tell you to get off your cross.



Once again, vegan does not equal PETA. And I'd be interested as to where you decided that "PETA folks" claimed that meat-eating should be made illegal. Not being snotty, but I've never once seen or heard a single quote to that affect from anything other than the usual morons you find in every movement, and I've known plenty of PETA people. And since I never said that porn should be made illegal, and this thread has nothing to do with porn, once again it seems that you're just cut-and-pasting from your stash of soapbox material.




Yawn. See above.



Just because you call it a tantrum doesn't mean it is (and mocking someone who disagrees with you with words like "tantrum" doesn't reflect badly on anyone but yourself). I could say you look like you're stamping your feet because someone dares to disagree with you.

I guess I could go back to just posting smart-ass one-liners on the hunting threads, since you just want to get pissy with me, but I can't see how that adds to the discourse here.

Speaking of "decent fucking discussion".

Where's it "gonna go"? You think meat eating is wrong- not just for you, but for everyone. And you don't seem interested in my opinion that there is a fundamental difference between those two points of view. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I never suggested, however, that you were a member of PETA. How would I know that? We've never had a conversation before today, have we?

I don't know you from Adam... ...remember?

Eh. I've said my peace.

You wrote: "Once again, vegan does not equal PETA. And I'd be interested as to where you decided that "PETA folks" claimed that meat-eating should be made illegal. Not being snotty, but I've never once seen or heard a single quote to that affect from anything other than the usual morons you find in every movement, and I've known plenty of PETA people."

From the PETA site:

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

PETA isn't just trying to spread their opinion. Their end goal is to make all of the above illegal.

It would require far more typing that I feel like doing right now to explain it fully, but "animal rights" basically means that we respect the interests of animals as opposed to treating them like mere commodities or things intended to benefit humans (food, clothing, entertainment, experiments, etc.) I don't say this to argue with you, since this is already enough of a thread-hijack, but simply to answer the question you asked.

Some members of PETA may very well believe that meat-eating should be made illegal. I don't because I don't think prohibitions change cultural attitudes, and I have an inherent distrust of any state that seeks to coerce it's citizens. And what PETA or its members believe is of very little concern to me anyway.

Let's just say that PETA doesn't speak for the entire AR movement anymore than Good Charlotte speaks for punk rock, and that their words don't always match their actions. The fact that you think that PETA is this radical boogeyman means that you've either watched too much Penn & Teller or you're remaining purposely ignorant. Just to prove my point, name me one other animal rights organization. As the other guy said, come on, this should be fun. Just one.

That kinda' takes the fun out of it, doncha' think? :)

Actually, the name that comes to mind are the kooks for earth liberation, although I know enough to realize that they are a very loosely affiliated bunch. They're into animal rights. As a matter of fact, some of them would just as soon see humans dead. And I don't know if there's actually a group called Animal Liberation or if that's just Peter Singer coming to mind.

It's very disingenuous when you consider what the goals of the "animal rights" group are.

.... Freeper!

Ok, not really. You know, I used to feel the same as you about hunting. But I've changed my mind. IMHO, anyone who eats meat has no room to judge, because animals raised for food are not only brutally murdered, they never have a life to begin with.

The world as we know it is centered around a graduated food chain, with plants at the bottom and meaty animals at the top. In this world, living things of all kinds have to die so more "advanced" living things can live.

Being against hunting is like being against the universe or against nature, and guess what, the universe and nature are going to win every time.

is relevant to humans. I agree with you that people who eat meat shouldn't judge hunters. That's why I don't eat meat.

For the last time, Rhino horn doesn't make your dick bigger.

:rofl: You made me snarf my coffee dammit.

Or whatever part of a tiger is cut out, pulverized and ingested to
make a man a manly man!



Kill him to get a boner?!?

Fucking twits!

They're too busyt today watching the infidel's trial for naming that Teddy Bear Muhammed.

Freedom is not in fashion for the far left or right.

you know the rest

I see people praising Hugo Chavez who is steadily muting his opposition. Socialists need to start the socialist party, Democrats are not socialists (yes, moreso than Republicans, but...)

Let me get comfy here.

:popcorn:

:popcorn::popcorn:

breast-fed their babies and would vote for (insert candidate of your choice here)


:rofl:

Is whether or not people should be allowed to abort a deer fetus from a deer while smoking, and then slaughter the deer, turn it into a double Whopper, and sell the Whopper in a school cafeteria.

to abort a deer fetus from a deer while smoking after having sex in the woods

:popcorn:

:rofl:

Damn, this one is getting good.

What does the Greek in your signature pic say?

Oh, and I almost forgot my popcorn. :popcorn:

"Welcome To GD"

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:popcorn:

Excuse me while I hide for the rest of the night.

With hunting, we use guns and then eat the thing we kill.

Don't ruin it for hunters with that imagery.



:rofl:

then you'd see that abortion doctors eat their kills.... Srsly, it must be true if they say it, right?

I've never hunted or participated in an abortion.

Ah, that more Amen's came with such!

:toast: MKJ

I've never really hunted but my ex did and my family's freeser was plentiful for many months afterward.

I've also had an abortion. No matter what birth control method you use, the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy is always there. The time of your life dictates whether you and your spouse or s/o are ready for the long term commitment it takes to raise a child has a significant impact. I chose not to introduce a child into this world at that time. Later on, I had, and still have, 2 beautiful 'children' and now 2 adorable grandchildren. The situation was very different early on in my life but I have NO regrets.



Edit for a minor grammer mistake

People need to stop trying to run other people's lives.

:)

but who the hell am i to tell someone else to live by my moral code.

That's like totally weird.

and others do not.

Personally, I have trouble being "against" hunting, since I eat meat and I don't think there's anything "wrong" with eating meat. Frankly, I think hunting one's own meat is a far more natural state of affairs than buying frozen chicken nuggets from the gas n' go.

As for hunting animals for pure 'sport'; no, it's not my bag, and I would personally have a problem with it- but there's a wide chasm between me saying it's not something I would do to saying that it should be illegal or it's not something anyone should do.

... according to them, porn is murder.

But I think you knew that!

creatures body.

i am not against meat eating or hunting for food, but its a pretty terrible argument

which makes it a great analogy. and which is exactly why I say to pro-lifers that they should probably not have an abortion if that's what they believe, but again, don't tell me what to do. same with hunting.

because it can be used to justify anything.

dont like rape, dont do it etc.

sorry, argument is just bad

:evilgrin:

:P

;)

for a lot of the year's protein.

I have no sympathy for trophy hunting, nor do I have much for the type of "hunting" that rich men like Cheney do, stalking tame prey in pens, but like all moral judgments, it ends at the surface of my skin. It's just something I could never do.

Either that, or only pregnant women should be allowed to carry guns. These are the only options that make any sense at all. And who would you rather see issuing gun permits, that guy with all the broken snowmobiles in his front yard, or the friendly pharmacist with the clean, white smock?

feel free to hunt and abort as much as you like.

Sid

It's gonna be a hell of a year.

between hunting attitudes and anti-abortion attitudes.

i personally would never do either, although i've never faced an unwanted pregnancy, but i certainly wouldn't tell anyone else what to do.

chance...

My comment was meant to be nonsense. Although, I can't say my view differs from yours.

:shrug:

BTW. You just got my second recommendation on a thread, ever.

What I think the poster is trying to say is like this rally sign I saw at a pro-choice rally, DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION?-THEN DON'T HAVE ONE!. It was in Austin with the late, great Ann Richards!

not be forced to live, say, by some pro-lifers view of morality. Or some peta morality. they can certainly provide the information but we dont have to listen. outlawing hunting? come on. and i dont even hunt, since i can buy my meat at the grocery store and all, and weapons freak me out.

because in their society, it's considered ethical?

That's a whole different issue. I don't exactly agree with the OP and the saying he's imitating, anyway. For people who believe abortion is murder it would be like saying, "If you don't believe in murder, don't murder anyone." I believe that what the issue comes down to is the fact that the fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body, so she has the right to make a decision about the pregnancy.

With hunting, I would make the argument that just about every single thing we eat is something that we've killed. I'd love to see a world where no one or no thing has to kill another thing to eat or survive, but we're living on the wrong planet for that. Does a deer care whether it's a wolf or a gun that brings him down? Outlawing hunting is coming pretty close to saying we aren't allowed to survive as nature created us to survive.

Cutting off a little girl's clitoris for no reason but to stop her from enjoying her future sex life is just wrong. It's a huge infringement on another's personal being for no moral or natural reason on Earth.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in our culture who could justify FGM. What I'm relating to the OP is the idea that "if you don't like x, then don't do x" is actually a valid argument.

There seems to be a big difference between abortion and hunting, at least in terms of utilitarian ethics.

I'm not against either, heck, I would encourage some (Republican) people to practice some retroactive abortions on themselves. As I would encourage the sport hunting of Republican hypocrites....

This deserved a DUzy nomination. No, a DUzy lifetime achievement award.

Somebody pass me some popcorn!

:o

alright, off to the drive through hunting/abortion clinic range.

Of all the assinine things to criticize people for, why criticize them for this?

Equating it to abortion is a bit of a stretch though - the hunting issue is so lame IMHO.

I would have used a more apropos example, that's all.

:rofl: How about criticizing hunting as an unnecessary sport? That ok?

we don't live in a time when hunting is necessary. Food is plentiful and cheap. Hunting is killing without purpose. The first Americans, the native Americans and the Pilgrims didn't commit what Dante considered the worst sin: gluttony, taking more than you need. We don't need to hunt. It's a selfish act of cruelty. If you're Christian, consider as ye sow so shall ye reap. Karma, baby. Today the hunter, tomorrow the hunted.

without a cogent response.

who takes pleasure in other people dying.

:shrug:

My stepbrothers hunt to put food on the table they couldn't otherwise afford. I know a lot of people who do that. Not all hunters are trophy hunters.

They'd really die of malnutrition?

If they're that poor they must live in lean-to's and wear animal skins. Certainly they can't have TV, 4-wheelers, & other such amenities.

Have they ever heard of jobs or are they so unskilled that employment is impossible?

Shouldn't you, as a caring family member, step in and try to get your kinfolk to evolve beyond the pelt wearing stage?

You obviously aren't interested in hearing what life's really like here. Go on and stick to your preconceived notions and give up on ever understanding the Other.

For what it's worth, I went to school with kids who had no running water and had dirt floors for their shacks in the woods. Yes, people still live like that here in the States.

Odds are I live in a place just like your "here". Odds are my family came from a background just like your "here". Things are like that in rural Kentucky.

When did you go to school? Was it recently?

I know lots of people who lived in conditions so poor they had to hunt but that was seventy years or more ago.

I don't know a single person who has to hunt as a matter of basic survival today.

I graduated in 1992, and my mom retired from that school just a couple of years ago.

To get to my mom's new house in rural SW Michigan, I drive past the muck farms and the shacks the poor live in there. Those people hunt and for good reason.

Or perhaps it would be better to say you are very lucky.

What about the poor? Do you have any idea how many subsistence hunters there are in this land of cheap plentiful food? Do you have any idea how many poor people there are in the US? And while we're at it, do you have any plans for managing animal populations that no longer have natural controls without using hunting?

Don't talk about things you don't know anything about.

:nopity:

:rofl:

Knock yourself out.

Yes, there is nothing I would like better than to take a swing at everyone who does something I don't approve of. But I don't. Because that is wrong. By this logic, I should kill hunters, because there is no reason why I shouldn't do anything I want to do, and no one should tell me otherwise.

Well I am telling you: Animal protein is not necessary for survival. You are killing because you like to, and in my mind that makes you a sick fuck. I think you should stop hunting and get some help to find out why you can't be happy without killing.

it's the idea that someone finds killing a fun, swell thing to do that completely sickens me. I could never date a hunter - I consider them first class cowards.

When asked about his views on hunting, and what kind of animal he preferred to hunt:

"I'd have to say deer," said the senator. "I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach... That's hunting."

I bet you're glad you didn't vote for him...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/27/do2702.xml

:rofl:

i dont hunt. never have, never will.

am I still a sick fuck?


:rofl:

what a bunch of nastiness.

Many laughs. Thanks. :toast:

just saying I think it's cowardly and disgusting

I find it not much different than throwing people into the arena with lions in Rome. death as a sport. Doesn't matter whose death. As I said before, if someone tried to shoot my dog, I would react in exactly the same way as if someone tried to shoot your child.

IMO, there's nothing cowardly OR brave about hunting a deer for venison roast or a duck for a good gumbo. ;)

You may disapprove, but that doesn't make hunting cowardly. It just makes you look like you're reaching for an argument.

.

But I think comparing it to abortion is a tad misguided. Unless you've got a deer growing in your womb.

I will support your right to abort that baby deer because that would be a case of you needing to have control over your own body. Until I see people getting pregnant with baby deers though, I really don't see how abortion and hunting have anything in common.

Abortion involves a woman controlling her own body, hunting involves shooting another living being that is in no way connected to your body. They are not comparable, and it doesn't matter what you say about people telling you what not to do because there are completely different issues involved and in certain cases I am sure even you would agree hunting should not be permitted (endangered species, hunting inside city limits, etc.) Now you may say you are not talking about those kinds of situations, but it does not matter the fact is you probably want some regulations on hunting and in certain cases you are probably going to think it is perfectly reasonable to not allow you to hunt. Abortion is a completely different issue altogether, and I would argue it is never appropriate to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. It is not appropriate to restrict a person's right to control their own body, it is perfectly appropriate to put regulations on hunting and I don't think even too many hunters could honestly deny that.

anywho - i agree with everything you said re: abortion since again, I'm pro-choice. but there are people who do not think that way. my point is that they are certainly entitled to their beliefs but they shouldn't want to force them on everyone else. but they do. there are pro-lifers who say they want to change the laws in favor of their views.

my answer to them is if you dont believe in it, dont have one.

seems simple enough.

i dont hunt. but i certainly wouldn't want to create laws to abolish it because i'm not down with it. you do realize there are people here who do, right?

my answer to them is if you dont believe in it, dont hunt.

Wait until you get to the woods to rub the female deer piss all over yourself and please take a Beano or some other fart control medicine after you eat the deer afterwards as well. Both of those things just smell really disgusting.

:spray:
:rofl:

and i dont even hunt.


lets go get a beer.

:beer:

And I'm not a hunter either. Just sayin'. They have armed guards in those animal factories to us from seeing what goes on, for a simple reason: it's a totally disgusting, filthy way to raise food. Even apart from animal rights, if you saw one of those places, you would not want to eat anything that came from one.

our food...

As wacky as PETA is the one thing that's true is if you see those videos, even if you don't give a rat's ass about animal rights, you sure don't want to eat any of that factory farmed crap!! Animals that are supposed to be grazing on a pasture are really not supposed to be stacked up shitting on each other, and if you're eating that product, well that's what you're eating. It's harsh but that's the truth!!

conditions, decent way, decent food. Whether it be carrots or ham. Strawberries or deer. I'd like to see food be more localized, more personal.

and I agree with the original poster. Deer meat is rather tasty.

I couldn't let it go on, Michael. This sick sicilian thing. I couldn't bear you another son.

Gonna have to address the issue.

(like rape, medical problems) or other kinds of difficult situations (like being unable or unprepared to raise a child).

Hunting is a chosen hobby, unless you're really talking about food for survival, which really isn't the case in most of the US.

That said, I have no problem with hunting, guns, or learning how to shoot. I just consider abortion more vital to the health and welfare of women and the poor than hunting, at least at the current time under current conditions. If the infrastructure goes, then hunting will become truly vital again.

Choices come in all different degrees. The choice to hunt is like the choice to surf: you can partake, you cannot partake, and it largely doesn't matter to society at large because it is primarily about recreation, even though, to the participant, it may seem like a major lifestyle decision. (Talk to surfers sometime about their "hobby". You get a real education.)

The choice of an abortion is not at such a light level, however. Most women I know have had abortions due to medical problems, rape, and being underage and far too young to raise a child. None of these situations is about hobbies or recreation. And even when a woman decides on an abortion for other reasons, it's almost never a frivolous choice, and usually involves much pain and soul searching.

As I said before, I have no problem with hunting. I am worried that your impression of abortion is so lighthearted. A woman doesn't decide to spend her day off of work getting her nails done, getting her hair cut, and, oh by the way, getting an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that, even in the best of physical and mental circumstances, involves side effects, physical/hormonal consequences, and a personal loss, even if it was a necessary one.

I am wondering how many people have such a misguided view about abortion. I fought for abortion rights and believe in no restrictions on the procedure. But I support this knowing that most women go through a great deal of turmoil in making the decision, usually talking with the male involved and often with close friends or family. It is never like deciding on a recreational activity. Never.