WTFs dating hunters in Nebraska (because nobody cares about the Nashville Predators)
-
So you deliberately misconstrued my point to make your point?
I don't think I did that.
And that makes your point a good point?
My point's goodness is inherent. It doesn't rely on your nonsense.
-
It's like a mountaineer picking a small hill and using a helicopter. If the challenge were the reason they would not go out of their way to make it as easy as possible. It is obviously not the reason they do it.
So maybe the guy likes flying a helicopter. You're not making a good case here.
-
It's like a mountaineer picking a small hill and using a helicopter
Or a cyclist buying a high quality racing bike? Or a snooker player chalking his cue?
-
My point's goodness is inherent. It doesn't rely on your nonsense.
This was your point as you seem to have forgotten:
Yes, humans use tools. Go starve in a field if you have a problem with that. A 747 is as much a part of nature as a beaver dam you misanthropic ignoramus.
Which was
- A reaction to what you think I said so yes your point depends entirely on what you perceived to be my "nonsense".
- Not what I was saying at all and only an idiot would interpret it like that
And you maintain your point was a good point and not a pointless non-sequitur stating the bleedin' obvious?
-
Or a cyclist buying a high quality racing bike? Or a snooker player chalking his cue?
They are competing against another human being with the same tools dumbass: that's the challenge. Any other bullshit comparisons?
-
A hiker buying boots that don't chafe? If they're not increasing the challenge by making their feet hurt how can it be real sport?!
-
A hiker buying boots that don't chafe? If they're not increasing the challenge by making their feet hurt how can it be real sport?!
That's not sport or a challenge. Are you starting to get this? I am referring to anyone who says that they hunt with a rifle for the challenge. They are not or they would not. They would hunt with something more... hmmm... challenging.
-
unless they wanted to minimise the cruelty to the animal by not sticking an arrow in it and waiting for it to die
-
And you maintain your point was a good point and not a pointless non-sequitur stating the bleedin' obvious
Yes, it's a good point that people would be well served to remember. It happens to be relevant to your whining about what others enjoy and how much difficulty they should have when doing it using modern tools.
I am referring to anyone who says that they hunt with a rifle for the challenge.
Yes, and we're saying you're full of shit. Or just don't know any better. Possibly just a troll. Who can say for certain?
-
Yes, and we're saying you're full of shit. Or just don't know any better.
And yet abjectly failing to give any logical arguments for that. I wonder why?
-
unless they wanted to minimise the cruelty to the animal by not sticking an arrow in it and waiting for it to die
If minimising cruelty is your objective then the solution is simple.
-
a nuke?
-
-
a nuke?
I know that's a joke but I actually think you haven't seen the simple and obvious solution to which I was referring (and I'm shocked I have to spell it out): don't kill the animal at all.
-
oh, you mean just cut off an ear as a trophy and let it go
filed under feeding the troll
-
Thanks Jaloopa. Your trolling does show the hollowness of the pro-hunting arguments.
-
-
So, should shoes be banned at marathons?
given the times i've seen for people who do run shoeless you may be on to something there.
-
So, should shoes be banned at marathons?
Nice to be able to copy and paste answers already given but it would be better if people read them and saved me the trouble:
They are competing against another human being with the same tools: that's the challenge obviously
-
And hiking isn't sport, because if it was that would destroy @LurkerAbove's argument
-
-
I already said it wasn't and it obviously isn't. Who wins at hiking?
-
-
And yet abjectly failing to give any logical arguments for that. I wonder why?
Look, you're like the classic PHB who doesn't understand something and therefore thinks it must be easy.
don't kill the animal at all.
We get it, killing an animal is distasteful to you. This is a fine feeling to have, so long as you don't allow your emotions to get in the way of realities (like overpopulation).
They are competing against another human being with the same tools: that's the challenge obviously
You display a blakeyrat like level of imagination. Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't real or that other people can.
-
That's not sport or a challenge. Are you starting to get this? I am referring to anyone who says that they hunt with a rifle for the challenge. They are not or they would not. They would hunt with something more... hmmm... challenging.
The challenge isn't getting the kill. It's getting to the point where you can take your shot in the first place. And that's true no matter what sort of game you're hunting (save for truly huge stuff like bison or elephant), and no matter what weapon you have in your hands.
@XanderTheGamer: threads behave this way around here. Now, if you wish to complain to Nebraska Game and Parks about their website being a piece of deer poop...I think that motion will carry here. :)
-
Look, you're like the classic PHB who doesn't understand something and therefore thinks it must be easy.
And you're the classic PHB who can't grasp a simple premise: the fact that they go to efforts to reduce the challenge (by using a rifle) proves that "doing it for the challenge" is not the reason - it's just an excuse. If it was just for target practice then no animals would need to be killed. That is my point. If you want to make these points about nature and what's natural and whether shooting an animal is more difficult than going for a dump then fine but don't claim they prove my point is full of shit. That has nothing to do with what I was saying.
We get it, killing an animal is distasteful to you.
No you don't get it. My point is: the reasons given for it (the excuses) are lies. Self-deception possibly but they don't stand up to scrutiny. The real reason is they enjoy the killing. And if you don't find that distasteful then there's something sickeningly wrong with you.
You display a blakeyrat like level of imagination. Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't real or that other people can.
It is obviously not sport. Who wins the hunt? Animal vs man, one armed with a rifle. What sport involves different rules for the two competitors? That you can't see that blatant, obvious truth doesn't make it any less true. It is not done for the challenge. It is not a sport by any useful definition of the word. These are just feeble excuses. Why is there a need to come up with such excuses? Because, as Jaloopa pointed out, it is cruel. "Miminised" or not.
-
The challenge isn't getting the kill. It's getting to the point where you can take your shot in the first place.
Then use a fucking camera!
-
-
which is itself strapped to an ICBM!
-
And you're the classic PHB who can't grasp a simple premise: the fact that they go to efforts to reduce the challenge (by using a rifle) proves that "doing it for the challenge" is not the reason - it's just an excuse.
I think every hunter has his own reasons for why he enjoys it. I suspect that for at least some of them, the challenge of putting lead on target is there.
If it was just for target practice then no animals would need to be killed. That is my point.
OK, fine, but just because you swear that using a rifle isn't a challenge doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy into your fantasy.
No you don't get it. My point is: the reasons given for it (the excuses) are lies.
I get that you believe that. You're taking one aspect of something (and getting it wrong, BTW) and making it the whole thing. That's cool, it's a classic trolling technique.
-
swear that using a rifle isn't a challenge
I did not say that. That was not my point. Please, for the last time: the excuse given that "I do it for the challenge" is obviously not the real reason because efforts are made to reduce the challenge. That people need to make up excuses like that should ring alarm bells in any logical person's mind that they may just be covering up a guilty truth.
and making it the whole thing.
No it is you that is making it the whole thing. That is just one of the excuses given for it that I am addressing. Scroll up for the others (food, population control, enjoying the great outdoors).
-
It's like a mountaineer picking a small hill and using a helicopter. If the challenge were the reason they would not go out of their way to make it as easy as possible. It is obviously not the reason they do it.
I read most of the thread up to this point, but now I am replying and am probably out of context but never mind.
I am sorry, but this whole case of comparing difficulty you are making isn't valid.
Yes, a bow and arrow is harder than a rifle, but does that mean using a rifle is trivial? No. They are different skillsets and being good at one does not mean you will be any good with the other.
Similarly, the quoted metaphor doesn't really work. Would a mountaineer choose a really small hill and then fly a helicopter onto it? he probably would if he was also a helicopter pilot and the landing space on top of the hill was very small. It would give him a real opportunity to test his helicopter skills.
The only valid argument you have, specifically that the necessary killing of animals should be done by professionals who aren't going to fuck it up, invalidates the above argument. If it takes a professional to not fuck it up, it isn't trivial.
Hunting isn't for me, but I am a meat eater, and if you aren't willing to kill it, you shouldn't be happy to eat it. As such, I can respect hunting as the inverse, if you are going to kill it, you better be planning to eat it.
I would rather all hunting kills were instant and as painless as possible, but that isn't always possible and I can accept that.
if you have a problem with cruelty, I don't think the ratio of suffering animals killed in hunting is where it needs to be for it to be your priority. I would look at the kosher slaughtering of animals which have to be unstunned and have their throats cut to be acceptable. That seems like more of a priority target for animal righs activism than hunting where laws are already in place and the issue is enforcement.
-
the excuse given that "I do it for the challenge" is obviously not the real reason because efforts are made to reduce the challenge.
Can you quote an actual hunter who said that he does it for the challenge? Do you know what he meant by "the challenge?" It really doesn't sound like any of this actually happened.
That is just one of the excuses given for it that I am addressing. Scroll up for the others (food, population control, enjoying the great outdoors).
They all seem pretty legit to me, though I wouldn't use the term, "excuse," of course.
-
the excuse given that "I do it for the challenge" is obviously not the real reason because efforts are made to reduce the challenge.
Reduce, not remove. There is still a challenge remaining.
-
Challenge is absolute, same as cruelty. You either make something as hard as possible and torture the animal over weeks or make it absolutely trivial and get a slaughterhouse to make the animal slip off into a deep sleep. There is literally nothing in between these two when it comes to hunting
-
If that happens then you trap them if you have any brains at all. Your rifle would make a mess of it if it hit and didn't just scare it off.
You're literally just making stuff up now. Either that or your shoulder aliens have shoulder aliens.
Wow I have 78 replies to read through.
I call bullshit propaganda on that. I'm sure they teach that it is best to aim for the head but I very much doubt the majority of kills are. You quit listening to your shoulder aliens even if they are officially endorsed. Those are the worst kind.
They don't teach you to aim for the head. I don't know where you get this stuff. How can you judge stuff you literally know nothing about? You're like a 19th century Amazon jungle bushman trying to tell people Linux is bad.
hunting with a rifle is a paltry excuse for a challenge.
You've obviously never hunted so you wouldn't know that. It is a challenge regardless of what you or your shoulder aliens say.
There are indeed and that was the point I was making. For some lamentable reason you chose the one that involves killing things.
So? It's legal and it's tasty.
Ah but you suggested I ask a warden. I suggest you ask a scientist on what you asserted: that most animals don't survive the winter and being killed by a gun is kinder than taking their chances. I think you pulled that 'fact' out your arse.
Shoulder aliens again. I said a warden or someone who works for the conservation departments. The wardens can tell you who those people are, they are the gateway to meeting the real scientists. Except you've already decided scientists aren't scientists so this was one of the most pointless posts I've written in my life.
I'm only talking about you: you are not helping control the population. They don't need you to do this. It's a feeble excuse for it. Give up on it.
If you'd actually read the research by scientists you'd know this is wrong. You're making stuff up.
Then quite the killing.
Says he who endorses the wholesale mass-slaughter of factory-raised cattle, but is somehow morally superior because someone else did it for him.
Oh indeed. It's a fact. No evidence or non-spurious arguments provided but it's a fact because you say it is.
I've told you repeatedly how to get the evidence and you've brushed it off as nonsense.
No your scenario in which you fantasise about me starving and needing the help of a hunter and him hunting a squirel with a rifle and graciously giving me some of the splattered carcass.
It's not a likely scenario, but possible. And splattered carcass? What? Not from a competent hunter. Not even from an almost-competent hunter. Maybe from an idiot like you.
No because they needed to hunt and kill to survive. You do not. That is the difference. You do it for "fun"! Stop kidding yourself that there is any utility to it whatsoever.
My venison chilli tells me there is plenty of utility to it.
A hunting thread turns into a hunting ethics flamewar? Who would have guessed!?
It actually took longer than I expected. Last time I got in a hunting flamewar on another forum the anti-hunter actually got perma-banned by the moderators. Then he made like 12 sock-puppet accounts to continue and he got IP-banned too.
Option 1: Hunting illegal, state hires trained game assassins to cull the population. Their salaries come out of the budget and taxes need to be raised, or services cut.
Yep, this actually happens. St. Louis has an urban bow season to try to cull the deer population but bow hunting is hard and so very few people do it. The city actually has to hire mercenaries each year to come in and shoot a few thousand deer, otherwise traffic becomes a reverse game of frogger. And all of that meat gets donated to the poor.
Of the two options: professional marksmen who are more likely to kill the correct number and kill with more humane headshots than a bunch of amateurs (who have done the course that says they should do that but "heh, who's checking?") wandering around the wilderness with rifles shooting at things that might need their population controlled but they have no frigging idea - all they know is they've been given a license. It really is a no-brainer as to which is more effective, humane and less likely to involve innocent bystanders getting shot by accident (or at least putting them off going there because they might). (Or is the ever so astronomical cost of that the argument now? It's shifting all the time.)
You're back to making stuff up. Those "professional marksman" hunt in their spare time too. Is it somehow okay for them to do it for work but not personally? And again you don't aim for the head in like 99% of cases. Everyone knows that. Except you. The mandatory state-sponsored hunter classes (which are far more than license mills for idiots, like you think, but since you've never taken one and probably won't you'll never understand that) teach that.
And it's a leading question. I don't trust the people that hand out licenses to have the foggiest idea of the complexities of population control. They are simply bureaucrats. Their formula is "too many = kill some, too few = don't". The sensitive dependence on initial conditions of the complex feedback mechanism that is population dynamics shows that that approach is just random guesswork. Only if they are saying "we must kill 455 this year, not 454, not 456 but exactly 455 because our super-computer model has shown that that will knock all the relevant populations (predators and prey) into a stable equilibrium for the coming years" would I have any confidence in their figures.
Go job shadow them then. And then try to tell them they are simple bureaucrats and their Masters Degrees in Conservation and all the models they follow don't mean jack.
Call me a cynic
At this point, I'd call you either an idiot or a troll. I'm not sure which.
I was talking about whether hunting with a rifle is challenge: it is not - therefore it is not sport - that excuse doesn't hold any water. Other excuses were addressed elsewhere.
At this point I can safely assume that you've never been hunting, you've never had a friend who goes hunting, you've even never met someone who knew someone who once hunted. 19th century Amazon jungle bushman trying to tell everyone that PHP is easy.
-
Before I read any further: Do you like to eat meat?
If you do eat meat, then you should consider that every bite of meat you have ever eaten and will ever eat came from a living animal. At some point, someone had to kill that animal. I think that those who hunt have a bit of a moral high ground here: they at least are willing to do what it takes to get there meat. They don't (always) rely on someone else to their killing for them. You anti-hunting meat eaters would rather just not worry about killing an animal.
And before you bring up some argument about farm raised animals being different because that's what they were raised for: so what? We still messed with nature. We domesticated them and made them what they are. Humans are still killing them. We've just taken the hunt out of it.
If you don't eat meat, then this isn't about the hunting, it's about eating meat at all. In which case, let's get down to your real complaint, all right?
One more question: are you also opposed to fishing?
-
Normally, if I find myself in an argument like this the other person is radically anti-meat. Not that I agree with them but at least I can understand their point and it's mostly self-consistent.
This is a new one for me though. I never knew these people were real.
http://robinfollette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fail-owned-meat-origin-fail.jpg
-
Your rifle would make a mess of it if it hit and didn't just scare it off.
Not if it's a small caliber. Not all rifles are created equal.
-
The city actually has to hire mercenaries each year to come in and shoot a few thousand deer, otherwise traffic becomes a reverse game of frogger.
Deer overpopulation plays hell on local flora, too. Won't someone think of the plants!
-
I already said it wasn't and it obviously isn't. Who wins at hiking?
The hiker when they get somewhere most people can't / won't go. If hiking isn't challenging, why am I having to go on multiple training hikes for my trip the the Grand Canyon this spring? I may have a sedentary desk job but I'm not that out of shape.
If sports are OK as long as you're competing against other humans with the same equipment, should we trap and tag deer before hunting season, assign each tagged deer to X number of humans and then they all chase that deer down with their rifles and the winner is the one who gets it first? They're competing against someone with the same equipment, after all.
Face it, you just really don't like hunting. You think it's cruel and barbaric. If they banned rifles and everyone bow hunted, you'd argue that bow hunting was too easy and hunters should run down deer with a club. (I have cousins who do bow hunt. If you don't know what you're doing, it really is cruel and barbaric).
Edit: is it fair if they only hunt things that can hunt you back, like bear?
-
they at least are willing to do what it takes to get there meat. They don't (always) rely on someone else to their killing for them
I've only gone hunting a couple of times, and always for small game like rabbits. The first one I killed was flushed out of its warren by a ferret and I broke its neck by hand. It was not a nice feeling, and watching it twitch from residual nerve firing was pretty nasty, but I had a bloody nice rabbit stew off it.
Not sure if I have a point here, but I certainly gained a bit of insight into what it means to eat meat. A nicely packaged steak in the supermarket was once a living cow, and if you don't like that idea you should probably become vegetarian.
-
Can we agree that the sport/challenge excuse that may be given for it is bullshit considering the efforts and expense paid on reducing the challenge?
Do you know any hunters? Do you have any idea how much of a challenge it is to even find an animal, regardless of the rifle/bow argument?
-
It's like a mountaineer picking a small hill and using a helicopter. If the challenge were the reason they would not go out of their way to make it as easy as possible. It is obviously not the reason they do it.
You're focusing too much on a single aspect of the hunt. There is a lot more to hunting than the actual shot. To take your analogy and make it more appropriate:
It's like a mountaineer climbing up a hill and riding a nice mountain-bike down a paved path.
-
Challenge is absolute, same as cruelty. You either make something as hard as possible and torture the animal over weeks or make it absolutely trivial and get a slaughterhouse to make the animal slip off into a deep sleep. There is literally nothing in between these two when it comes to hunting
Obviously if we wanted the real challenge, we'd go back to the old ways of just chasing animals for days until they dies from exhaustion. That's what humans evolved for anyway.
-
Obviously if we wanted the real challenge, we'd go back to the old ways of just chasing animals for days until they dies from exhaustion. That's what humans
evolvedwere inteligently designed for anyway.FTFY
-
We still messed with nature. We domesticated them and made them what they are. Humans are still killing them. We've just taken the hunt out of it.
You're the last one to bring this up so I'm quoting you:
Can we stop with this "not natural" crap? Cheetahs are fast. Sharks have sharp teeth and a great sense of smell. Humans are intelligent. Every animal on the list uses their best developed ability to survive, whether it be running, tracking the pray down or making tools and domesticating other animals.
We're a part of nature. Everything we do is natural. The matter of ecological balance is a different discussion from what's natural or not. Namely, it's a matter of spirituality. Only the supernatural is, by definition, not natural.
Edit: last paragraph got incoherent there. CBA to fix it on mobile. Use your own intelligence to unravel.
-
I think I've finally encountered the shoulder alien phenomenon.
Lolwut? You've been here at least as long as I have. It happens on the regular here.
Yes, and we're saying you're full of shit. Or just don't know any better. Possibly just a troll. Who can say for certain?
Distinguishing trolls from the willfully ignorant is a waste of time.
Either that or your shoulder aliens have shoulder aliens.
It's shoulder aliens all the way down.
-
Lolwut? You've been here at least as long as I have. It happens on the regular here.
For the most part I've avoided flame wars. My nature is not very confrontational. So I've seen people throw around the shoulder aliens thing but never had it happen to me.
Distinguishing trolls from the willfully ignorant is a waste of time.
I think there's a famous adage about throwing pearls before swine.
-
So I've seen people throw around the shoulder aliens thing but never had it happen to me.
Maybe we need a badge.
