If you eat what you kill and don't do the trophy thing, is it OK to enjoy the hunt or do you have to be miserable while you're doing it for it to be OK? I've had some hunts I enjoyed and some that were just miserable, wet and cold. And I've had some hunts where I didn't take any game at all but enjoyed the outdoor experience very much, anyway. That's got to be a tough one to make a moralistic decision about, huh?
Every animal on this planet feeds on other living things.
Even the most religious vegan bunny-huggers have no problem at all taking antibiotics and killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of living organisms by doing so. And if they get an infestation of lice or other vermin, they'll kill them, too. What makes them tick is CUTENESS. How much of a right a living thing has to go unmolested is directly related to how cute it is. Koalas are very cute, so the OP really got the bunny huggers fired up. If it was a Norway Rat, they wouldn't blink an eye. Even though Norway rats are way smarter than Koala bears. Go figure, huh?
LOL! Try a bloody mary when you wake up if you think the morning isn't going to go so well for you. Worked like a champ for me more than a few mornings when I was living in New Orleans.
Hunting... well, there are a lot of cool things about it. First and foremost, we're part of nature. Hunters are active participants in nature and not observers. In life, everything we eat that has any nutritional value was once alive and, for the most part, in order to eat it, you've got to kill it.
Of course, if you're a vegetarian, then you can be against hunting without being a hypocrite but if you eat meat, then being against hunting is like paying a hitman to knock off your ex and railing against murder. If you eat meat, something's going to die and you're going to pay someone to do the dirty work for you. Unless you're a farmer or a hunter, in which case, you take the meat from the field to the table, tending to it throughout the entire process. It'll be fresher and more healthy to eat and you know exactly how it was handled.
If I don't eat it, I don't hunt it. I'll kill stuff I don't want to eat, but that's my prerogative. If there are mice in the house, I'll send them to mousy-heaven. If cockroaches find their way in the house, I'll have them on their back, legs wiggling in the air and not think anything of it. But I won't kill just because it's cool to kill. Killing isn't cool. It is, however, how meat is made. And I'm OK with that.
Mine, too. I don't get understand it, either. So how do you know which people have minds that hate? Is it a litmus test as simple as whether they agree with you or disagree with you that is your measure? Or is it something more definitive? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were insinuating that people who have been disagreeing with your political agenda are "haters", but you're too reasonable for that sort of thing, so I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Maybe you can elaborate?
Oh... how many innocent people get executed in America every year? Hard to tell. Finding a guilty person in prison is like looking for hen's teeth. They're all innocent - railroaded. But if you know the answer to that question, please go ahead and enlighten us. And tell us how you know which were innocent?
As for Somalia, Zimbabwe, Burma and other countries rife with humanitarian atrocities.... Is it your position that we should invade them, too? Or do you think we shouldn't be bothered by humanitarian issues? Doing something about them... is it a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion?
We could have a whole thread dedicated to what should be done about man's inhumanity to man... I suppose everyone's got an opinion on how to "fix" that. But first we have to establish that it's a bad thing. Is it a bad thing Blarney? Should something be done about it?
Man's inhumanity to Man is always something to speak out against and act against. Saddam will never again gas innocent civilians and torture his subjects. Too bad we couldn't just ask him politely to stop and get a satisfactory result, huh?
And then after we were successful in Iraq and the lefties managed to win the house, senate and presidency, I looked at my buddy and said, "Jesus - those stupid bastages are going to try to spend us into prosperity"....
and the rest is history.
Thank God, the voters in this country demonstrated last week that they can learn from history and correct mistakes that have been made.
Demise? He's not dead yet, my dear. There, now you learned two new things today.
I don't think you could find any new videos of some of Bush's foibles that I've yet to see. I particularly liked the one where he walked into the locked door.
We went into Iraq for a whole lot of reasons. And as ugly a truth as it might sound, securing the infrastructure was first priority. As expensive as that war was, it would have been a lot more expensive if we had let them torch all the oil wells. As armchair quarterbacks, we can think of all sorts of things that we're sure would have worked out better but without parallel testing scenarios, we really have no way of knowing what changing this or changing that would have resulted in today.
But that's with all politics.... easiest thing to do is bash the people that are making the decisions because you can always insist that doing something else would have worked out much better than whatever it was that was done.
I think he was going on about the asinine remark that he got laughed out of office. You might be glad he left office, but he didn't get "laughed out". He simply couldn't run again because he was maxed out on term limits. The sarcasm was probably a bit over the top though since you're not an American and obviously don't know about term limits here. That's the great thing about an international forum, though. People get to learn new things about other countries. :)
The National Enquirer is more credible than that pinko rag. The Enquirer is motivated by entertaining people. The Huffington post i motivated by promoting Adriana Huffington's personal favorite flavor of communism. The Enquirer is a lot less sinister.
It would be wrong to assume there would be a few unexpected consequences, but that's just because you used the word "assume" instead of the words "be concerned". There is plenty of reason to be very cautious about unexpected consequences or potential for manipulation of the law in ways it wasn't intended. That's where the meat and bones of this discussion should be. For it to be a decent law, it would have to have NO negative impact on our right to free speech. But if it did, then it would be overturned by the first test before the Supreme Court. I don't actually see any "free speech" concerns. But we haven't turned over every rock yet. As it stands, if you don't have a website dedicated to peddling pirate merchandise or otherwise stealing intellectual property, it won't impact you at all. If you're an artist, writer or other creator or producer with copyrighted work and/or trademarks, etc., then it will be heavily in your interest to support it.
So I'm not really sure what's driving the agita here. I think some people and/or companies in a position to find their illegal cash cow has a bullseye on it's head are the ones doing the driving of the opposition to this. And they're driving it with "Free Speech" rationalizations because that works well. Any hint of our freedoms being infringed is enough to justifiably get people up in arms. It doesn't have to be a real threat to do it, either. And in this case, I don't think it is.
But I'm still open minded. If someone can present a GOOD case for how this would damage or infringe on the rights of any law abiding citizen, I'd be interested in hearing it. That would be enough to get me off the fence.
gardenhackle Forum Posts (2,067)
RE: Don't you just love hunters?
That's a myth. Waxing put an end to that trade, not razors.