WTFs dating hunters in Nebraska (because nobody cares about the Nashville Predators)
-
Citation please. It sounds like the most spurious piece of bullshit I've heard in a long time. You're doing them a favour huh?
I don't owe you anything. Ask any game warden or talk to anyone who works at any conservation department. Depending on state, they may be called "Department of Conservation", "Game and Parks Commission", "Department of Natural Resources", or more. They're the scientists who actually have degrees and study real-life data on this topic, not me.
Is it the sadistic, psychopathic pleasure of ending a life?
Citation needed. Show me the section of the DSM-IV where hunters are sadistic and psychopathic.
You don't need to kill them. You're doing it for nothing but fun. So the question is: what sort of fun?
It's fun and excellent exercise to go outdoors and spend a few days hiking with a pack and a rifle or two. Also great companionship if you have close friends you can go with. It's a great challenge to practice marksmanship and get my loads figured out before season starts, and get the rifle sighted in and see how accurate I can be. And all of this is fun even if I don't see a deer all season, which has happened more than once. The killing is secondary to enjoyment of the hunt.
Wild game is also very tasty and far healthier than the factory-raised beef you get from the grocery store.
Or do you claim it's a challenge? In which case take a bow and arrows and make it a proper challenge, not the supersonic, precision-engineered bullshit excuse for one.
ERROR_DOES_NOT_COMPUTE. So killing animals is bad, unless it's with a bow. But rifles are cruel? A good rifle shot will kill an animal within seconds. But with a bow (even a good shot), they bleed to death over 10 - 30 minutes as they run for their life, terrified, with an arrow sticking out of their lungs. Personally I don't bow hunt because I do consider it a cruel death, but I certainly don't go on Internet crusades against bow hunters on programmer forums.
If it's just enjoying the great outdoors as you say then take a camera instead of a gun and enjoy the fruits of your 'hunts' for a lifetime.
Photo paper doesn't taste very good, last time I checked.
I find it pitiful that an otherwise intelligent person can give such nonsense excuses for needless cruelty and then probably sit back and feel superior at people that point out that it is utter bullshit because the alternative would be to contemplate opening the doors to the waves of guilt for all the needless suffering that he has caused over the years.
I find it pitiful that an otherwise intelligent person can give such nonsense excuses against hunting and then probably sit back and feel superior at people.
So I read your "woe is me it's so complicated and expensive to get a license to be a sadist" and I can't help but think "good".
Okay, whatever. You're about as wrong as wrong can be on this whole subject, but that's your right and it's not my job to convince you otherwise. I just hope when Ebola takes over the country and all the cities are quarantined and food runs out that some evil, cruel, psychopathic hunter will take pity on you and perhaps give you some of his squirrel. Otherwise you're going to starve to death, just like the majority of wildlife you claim to respect more than hunters do at the end of the year when all the crops are harvested and it gets cold.
-
But, that said, I haven't had the vitriolic replies I was expecting to my probably quite inflammatory post above. Maybe the Superbowl's on.
Evidence suggests you just weren't patient enough - see above post
-
I don't owe you anything.
I said please. So, I have to provide the evidence for your nonsense assertions?
Those people will not be the experts on what you claim. They are not scientists. There are scientists who study those things but they don't get employed as wardens they get employed as, surprise surprise, scientists.Don't kid yourself that they need you to do this. They are just humoring you and probably keen on getting that $100 license fee.
Show me the section of the DSM-IV where hunters are sadistic and psychopathic.
I was asking a question. Of all the possible pleasures you get from killing is it sadism? You say it isn't. Are you sure? Self deception is the easiest thing in the world.
It's fun
See!
and excellent exercise to go outdoors and spend a few days hiking with a
No rifle necessary.
see how accurate I can be
No killing necessary for that.
The killing is secondary to enjoyment of the hunt.
The killing is enjoyable. Your words. I only asked and you answered of your own volition. You enjoy the killing (primary, secondary or tertiary): that is sadism.
Wild game is also very tasty and far healthier than the factory-raised beef you get from the grocery store.
Possibly (it's debatable considering the lead you've put into its blood stream) but you don't need to: the beef has already been killed for you. Abatoirs have standards that ensure the animals are killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. Anyone who thinks that a gunshot to the abdomen is a quick and clean death should try it some time.
So killing animals is bad, unless it's with a bow. But rifles are cruel?
No. They're both cruel but one is a challenge and the other is not. That supersonic hot lead doesn't have to work particularly hard to penetrate the hide of a dear and the dear doesn't see or hear it coming. You make it as easy as possible on yourself by using a rifle. I bet you use a scope too.
Photo paper doesn't taste very good
That is just facetious. It takes more skill to take a good wildlife photo than to kill an animal with a rifle and the results last a lifetime and can many many people can enjoy it (not just selfish old you). Don't you think you could manage to do something worthwhile with your country walks like that?
I find it pitiful that an otherwise intelligent person can give such nonsense excuses against hunting and then probably sit back and feel superior at people.
Touché but your arguments are still bullshit: "Wardens as scientists" - no they're not; "I'm helping them control populations" - no you're not; "I enjoy killing but I'm not a sadist" - yes you are or you wouldn't; "I enjoy the outdoors and it's good exercise" - a logical fallacy, no killing required.
Okay, whatever. You're about as wrong as wrong can be on this whole subject
Oh no
! I take it all back. With your last paragraph you have come out with a clincher of an argument. How silly of me to not see the truth of that elegant, logical, empirical line of reasoning.I just hope when Ebola takes over the country and all the cities are quarantined and food runs out that some evil, cruel, psychopathic hunter will take pity on you and perhaps give you some of his squirrel. Otherwise you're going to starve to death, just like the majority of wildlife you claim to respect more than hunters do at the end of the year when all the crops are harvested and it gets cold.
Now you just sound insane.
-
I don't have a gun in this fight, but I just wanted to point out what you've done here:
Oh no ! I take it all back. With your last paragraph you have come out with a clincher of an argument. How silly of me to not see the truth of that elegant, logical, empirical line of reasoning.
Now you just sound insane.
-
Those people will not be the experts on what you claim. They are not scientists. There are scientists who study those things but they don't get employed as wardens they get employed as, surprise surprise, scientists.
So statistics don't count if they come from the people whose job is to gather statistics on the topic at hand. If I was smart and slightly less stubborn I'd give up on this topic right now because you've got a self-defeating idea that experts are not experts.
I was asking a question. Of all the possible pleasures you get from killing is it sadism? You say it isn't. Are you sure? Self deception is the easiest thing in the world.
I don't particularly enjoy the killing part, but it's a necessary part of hunting. Sadism is enjoying the suffering of others. I don't enjoy animals suffering. I do my best to make the kill as quick and painless as possible to the point that there are a lot of shots I never took.
The killing is enjoyable. Your words.
I never said I enjoy killing. (I think I've finally encountered the shoulder alien phenomenon.) I enjoy hunting. Not the killing, but it's necessary. Guess what, it's possible to enjoy a process but not enjoy every single part of it. But it's all well worth it when I have a nice pot of homemade venison chili.
Possibly (it's debatable considering the lead you've put into its blood stream)
Lead doesn't magically diffuse through the entire animal on impact. Usually the bullet fragments into 2 - 4 pieces that are easily removed when you process the animal. Things are a little different with a shotgun, but that's why I use steel shot when legal.
but you don't need to: the beef has already been killed for you.
Oh, so you're one of those who's fine with killing as long as someone else does it for you. The simple fact of life is for you to live, something else must die. You don't somehow become morally superior because you made someone else do the dirty work for you.
Abatoirs have standards that ensure the animals are killed as quickly and painlessly as possible.
So do hunters. I suggest you take a Hunter Safety course sometime. They specifically teach you these standards and how to abide by them! And in most states the course is free!
Anyone who thinks that a gunshot to the abdomen is a quick and clean death should try it some time.
Anyone who hunts by firing gunshots to the abdomen is Doing It Wrongâ„¢. Anyone who teaches that a gunshot to the abdomen is a quick and clean shot is Doing It Wrongâ„¢. Quit listening to your shoulder aliens.
No. They're both cruel but one is a challenge and the other is not.
I get it, killing is okay as long as it's a challenge. I guess that's why we have serial killers.
That is just facetious. It takes more skill to take a good wildlife photo than to kill an animal with a rifle and the results last a lifetime and can many many people can enjoy it (not just selfish old you). Don't you think you could manage to do something worthwhile with your country walks like that?
I'm not a very good photographer, but I'm sure I have some blurry cell phone pictures somewhere. There are many ways to enjoy the outdoors, and if I had a better camera and hadn't ended up living in a city I'd be doing that all the time.
"Wardens as scientists" - no they're not
Game wardens aren't scientists, but they work for scientists. Real scientists, not the theoretical ivory-tower types. These guys gather statistics and data and do controlled experiments via permit counts to see how wildlife populations are affected, and make decisions based on the outcome of those experiments. And when they mess up, you end up with things like the Midwest Blue Tongue plague that nearly wiped out all the deer a few years ago. They have an incentive to be right and knowledgeable about these things.
"I'm helping them control populations" - no you're not;
I'd find you some statistics on this but you've already announced that the statistics don't matter if they come from someone who actually studies this stuff, so I won't even bother.
"I enjoy the outdoors and it's good exercise" - a logical fallacy, no killing required.
Who said killing is required to enjoy the outdoors? I love being outdoors whether it's camping, hiking, hunting, or dirt biking.
Oh no ! I take it all back. With your last paragraph you have come out with a clincher of an argument. How silly of me to not see the truth of that elegant, logical, empirical line of reasoning.
Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
Now you just sound insane.
Basic survival skills make one insane? This stuff is how humanity survived for how many thousands of years until like 200 years ago. I guess most humans through all history were insane.
And with that, I'm off to bed.
-
Are you suggesting hypocrisy on my part? My reasoned points were above that.
That scenario does sound insane to me: Ebola has destroyed civilisation and some skilled hunter with his rifle has shot a squirel and might share it with poor starving me. The layers of stupidity there are too many to tackle. But here's one: If you have any brains you don't hunt squirels with a rifle: you trap them.
-
But here's one: If you have any brains you don't hunt squirels with a rifle: you trap them.
Wow. Just wow. ...I don't even know how to argue against that. What color is the sky in your little world?
Sure you're not trolling? This is literally the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest trapping squirrel instead of shooting them with a rifle.
-
I'm talking about in your insane little scenario where eveybody's starving and we need to eat squirels. 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. Don't accuse me of trolling when you're the one making up such ridiculous scenarios where your oh so useful hunting skills are required by anyone at all.
-
So statistics don't count if they come from the people whose job is to gather statistics on the topic at hand.
The people who gather the statistics aren't the experts. I thought you regarded the scientists as the experts? That's who I regard as the experts. Not this hypothetical Billy Bob game warden and his anecdotal evidence that you are using as an argument from authority
I don't enjoy animals suffering
Just killing them. You somehow separate the two in your mind.
Speaking of shoulder aliens:
@mott555 said:I never said I enjoy killing
@mott555 said:I don't particularly enjoy the killing part
@mott555 said:The killing is secondary to enjoyment of the hunt.
Are you totally oblivious to what you're saying?
So do hunters. I suggest you take a Hunter Safety course sometime. They specifically teach you these standards and how to abide by them!
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.
I get it, killing is okay as long as it's a challenge. I guess that's why we have serial killers.
No. Neither is ok. (You're forcing me to repeat myself there.) Both are cruel. One is a challenge the other isn't. I was addressing the 'challenge' excuse with that comparison: hunting with a rifle is a paltry excuse for a challenge.
There are many ways to enjoy the outdoors
There are indeed and that was the point I was making. For some lamentable reason you chose the one that involves killing things.
Game wardens aren't scientists, but they work for scientists.
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.
I'd find you some statistics on this but you've already announced that the statistics don't matter
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.
Who said killing is required to enjoy the outdoors? I love being outdoors whether it's camping, hiking, hunting, or dirt biking.
Then quite the killing. Like alcohol to a suspected alcoholic: prove it!
Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
Oh indeed. It's a fact. No evidence or non-spurious arguments provided but it's a fact because you say it is.
Basic survival skills make one insane?
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. You see you have encountered shoulder aliens before. They are the ones telling you to say crazy shit like that.
I guess most humans through all history were insane.
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.
I'm off to bed
Me too. Sleep well.
-
Some people think they aren't a part of nature and that laws of nature / physics / economics / mathematics / logic don't apply to them
Loving the way you just slipped economics in there amongst all the respectable branches of thought. Hide in plain sight, that's the ticket.
-
Predator 0 The Mini-Series: Watch as Predator struggles to balance his home life, work life, and recreational activities.
-
So you'd rather manage the human population then?
Got my own vasectomy for exactly that reason. Obviously I can't manage the entire population with one vasectomy, but I can sure as hell choose to contribute to the solution on the same scale as my existence contributes to the problem.
-
A hunting thread turns into a hunting ethics flamewar? Who would have guessed!?
The real WTF is people thinking they have the right to sell the lives to sell nature like that. I hope that one day an alien race will sell the rights to go hunting hunters on earth.
Only if human population grows to such a state where it needs to be controlled by an outside mechanism. Humans are different from other animals in that we are capable of rational thought when it comes to procreation*. In general, babies are very good at three things:
- Screaming
- Puking
- Pooping
Now, while the uncontrolled screaming, puking and pooping tend to disappear with age, as a parent, you will later be expected to provide a car so that they can crash into things, and a university education so that they can drink themselves almost to death and end up with a degree that increases how employable they are by an insignificant amount. Considering that cars can be expensive, and that in twenty years a four-year university education will cost about as much as a house, that doesn't make financial sense. There's also the argument that it is a selfish and cruel action to bring another human being into this crappy world without his/her prior consent.
We rational beings are capable of evaluating these circumstances and making an informed decision one way or another. When was the last time you saw a couple of bucks chatting to one another, and one of them said, "Yknow, I ran the numbers, and if the doe and I don't do the fawn thing, I could buy a new Corvette Z06 AND a Hellcat Challenger and we'd still be able to retire comfortably at 50!"
The fact you just like shooting entirely defenceless wild animals is just a bonus, right? I'm sure you do it only because you really care about population control, balance and even disease management.
What about all those defenseless bean sprouts and other vegetables? Those bean sprouts had futures, you know! How many lettuce plants have to die every time someone wants a salad? Who's going to stand up for vegetable rights?
For the foreseeable future, gaining sustenance is going to involve killing things. There is no absolute moral high ground, only relative high ground based on what type of killing is personally "acceptable." It sucks, but that's nature.
Sure, overpopulation/disease/etc are problems, but do you really think it was an issue before humans started fucking with nature by putting up our cities and roads?
Those cities allow us to congregate and live more efficiently, in terms of space and energy used. Unfortunately, now they're gentrified and it's no longer economically efficient to live in them.
Or do you claim it's a challenge? In which case take a bow and arrows and make it a proper challenge, not the supersonic, precision-engineered bullshit excuse for one.
So engineering improvements are bad? Do the arrowheads have to be flint?
Don't kid yourself that they need you to do this. They are just humoring you and probably keen on getting that $100 license fee.
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.
Option 2: Hunting regulated, state collects a fee from hunters who do not need to be paid a salary and just do it for the fun of it.
Which one seems better policy?
*In spite of all this, while I am childless, I am not entirely against the idea of procreation. There'd better be some damned good reasons for it, though.
-
If it's going to say 'it's only okay if you eat it all' it's never had a cat.
The behaviour of a cat is a pretty poor excuse for a human's behaviour. Dolphins and ducks commit gang rape, lions kill cubs just so they can get their bone on with the cub's mother, monitor lizards bite big animals and wait for them to fall down with very painful septic infections. There are many examples of behaviour in non-human animals that would be inexcusable in humans.
-
That's the most terrifying machine I've ever seen.
Allow me to introduce you to one I found while trying to work out what boomzilla meant by a "sippy hole": the laws of physics do not apply to top deck rednecks. We don't need no stinkin seat belt roll cage nanny state yappity yap yap.
-
Somebody made a monster truck and forgot the passenger cabin.
-
A couple years ago the local deer populations were nearly wiped out by disease, and fewer deer permits were issued because of that.
Here's the thing that always gets me.
In year X, there were n deer.
Now, 50 years later, the deer are being wiped out by disease. A few thousand of years ago, this would have bested the deer. Now, they are left in check.
Nature is not taking it's "natural" course, thanks to us.
It's funny what is "natural" these days.
-
On that particular trip, I even got randomly selected to get swabbed for explosives residue on my return flight. Had me worried because I'm a raging redneck who tends to plink at bottles and cans in my free time, and at that time in my life there was about a 95% chance I'd have gunpowder residue on me somewhere.
Nothing happened. I have no idea if their test picked anything up, or if they didn't care to investigate further.
They don't pick up on gunpowder since that would.......not do too much on a plane. If you really wanted to have at it, you'd use something that the detectors would pick up on.
-
Nature includes man. Animals kill animals, man kills animals.
Ok, Ian Malcom.
Does woman inherit the Earth?
-
Fractals prove that... uh... shit that has absolutely nothing to do with fractals!!!
-
Dammit, now you're talking about the book.
-
Somebody made a monster truck and forgot the passenger cabin.
Somebody thought they were designing a cruise boat and forgot that diving hurts more when the pool is empty.
-
Fractals
This is not what you were talking about but, interestingly (at least to me), fractals do have a lot to do with population dynamics (see Logistic Map). I doubt if any of the people (not scientists - just collecting data does not a scientist make) planning to control the populations of wild animals have ever heard of it.
"lots of deer this year, lets kill (cull) some to reduce the numbers".
Next year: "oh look there's even more this year, we obviously didn't kill enough last time, we'd better kill more this time".Or: "we reckon that badgers are spreading TB to cattle. Lets kill loads of them and that will reduce the cases (this model in my head says it will)."
TB cases in cattle don't go down: "Obviously, we didn't kill enough: we need to kill more."
-
What about all those defenseless bean sprouts and other vegetables?
@Groaner - sentience. sentience - @Groaner.
You two obviously haven't met before.
-
I love it how both links have a click despite URL being the same...
*ducks back into cover from the actual discussion*
-
I love it how both links have a click despite URL being the same...
You made me click on of those just to screw with the balance ...
-
Nature includes man.
Nature includes cancer as well. And yet that we try to kill.
I've said it even before it became a thing after the matrix: humanity is a cancer to earth. Cancer cells are defined as cells that divide without control and are able to invade other tissue. Now, earth is arguably an organism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis), which has no or little control over our grow anymore (as we defeat much of what nature throws at us), and we are able to invade other areas (you know, the entire globe, and soon other planets - airborne cancer, sounds fun!).
-
The second one is the away leg.
-
-
I wouldn't trust discourse to count the clicks anyway:
-
You did ask so I should reply:
So engineering improvements are bad? Do the arrowheads have to be flint?
Nooo, I was talking about the 'challenge' excuse for well-fed people hunting with rifles. What other sport makes things as easy as possible? If you need to kill animals at a distance then a rifle is a far better method than a bow and arrow obviously.
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.
Option 2: Hunting regulated, state collects a fee from hunters who do not need to be paid a salary and just do it for the fun of it.
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.)
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.
Call me a cynic, but I think it often is just a money-making scheme of licenses, self-perpetuating jobs for civil servants and an excuse for hunters to think what they're doing is at all worthwhile. Slap a science label on it and it all seems so much more respectable.
-
Someone, please move the thread.
-
To where?
-
General.
-
professional marksmen who are more likely to kill the correct number and kill with more humane headshots than a bunch of amateurs
-
We are responsible for managing their numbers now because we are a key part of nature
can't take care of itself anymore.FTFY
-
If they did that to every post that went off topic...
What we have here is: a public sector institution has a crappy website that's full of bureaucracy and makes it hard to find what you want, which really is par for the course.
In this case, it's for getting licenses to go and
- mercilessly murder innocent animals for sadistic pleasure and various other misguided justifications for a needless act of wanton barbarism
- perform a valuable service to the community by selflessly volunteering to help in vital animal population control measures and get some lovely free-range food in the process
(pick whichever one you agree with)
So, many would put it last on the long list of public sector websites that need fixing. No WTF here (except probably people's opinions) so maybe you're right and it shouldn't be in the side bar.
-
No. They're both cruel but one is a challenge and the other is not. That supersonic hot lead doesn't have to work particularly hard to penetrate the hide of a dear and the dear doesn't see or hear it coming. You make it as easy as possible on yourself by using a rifle. I bet you use a scope too.
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.
-
I refer the gentleman to my other replies to similar "totally missed the point of what I was saying" above.
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.
If you think I am making a point about what is natural and what isn't then you need your comprehension lobes calibrating.
-
Loving the way you just slipped economics in there amongst all the respectable branches of thought. Hide in plain sight, that's the ticket.
I will admit it's not quite like the others (though each has at times been hilariously wrong in hindsight). But still, some people think they can defy basic things like scarcity or supply and demand. I stand by that.
-
some people think they can defy basic things like scarcity or supply and demand
Isn't that the point of being rich?
-
Allow me to introduce you to one I found while trying to work out what boomzilla meant by a "sippy hole": the laws of physics do not apply to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOUrPmz0QuI&t=3m30s">top deck rednecks.</a> We don't need no stinkin seat belt roll cage nanny state yappity yap yap.
Sippy hole racing is an amazing thing to watch. I remember discovering it on ESPN or something 20 or so years ago.
-
I was talking about whether hunting with a rifle is challenge: it is not - therefore it is not sport
Your argument rests on the assumption that shooting a deer with a rifle is equally as cruel as shooting it with an arrow. Several people have disputed this and your answers seem to suggest that you think "cruelty" is an absolute - it either is or isn't.
-
have no frigging idea
I think this sums up your posts better than I could. I'm not a hunter, but I know plenty of them. It's clear you do not.
Call me a cynic,
Too generous.
-
No. For the umpteenth time. I was talking about whether it was a challenge.(You quoted me saying that for pity's sake.
) A bow and arrow is. A rifle is not.
The cruelty of both (for they are both cruel if done for pleasure) is a different issue that I addressed elswhere. If it is necessary then a rifle is of course more humane (probably, depends where you hit). The question is: is it necessary. 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?
-
If you think I am making a point about what is natural and what isn't then you need your comprehension lobes calibrating.
I think your point is a bad point that doesn't make the case you think it makes.
-
-
So you deliberately misconstrued my point to make your point? And that makes your point a good point?
-
No. For the umpteenth time. I was talking about whether it was a challenge.(You quoted me saying that for pity's sake. ) A bow and arrow is. A rifle is not.
Have you done a lot of shooting? Hunting? Why should anyone care about your perceived levels of difficulty?
-
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.
Appeal to nature - Wikipedia
