WTFs dating hunters in Nebraska (because nobody cares about the Nashville Predators)
-
-
You're literally just making stuff up now.
No because I do know a thing or two about hunting. Because rifles is all you know you think that is the most appropriate method for getting food. (Really it's because you enjoy it more that way. Be honest.) Farming is the best way as any fule nos.
They don't teach you to aim for the head.
Oh then pray tell: what humane place do they tell you to aim for? The neck? The groin?
How can you judge stuff you literally know nothing about?
I'm starting to wonder that about you.
You've obviously never hunted so you wouldn't know that.
I've not shot fish in a barrel but I know that's easy enough. What a stupid argument: you've never done it so how can you know? It's a thing called reasoning and imagination and reading and listening to other people (and not just those that reinforce your own blinkered opinions).
It's legal and it's tasty
I never said it wasn't. I don't see what that has to do with it. In some places cannibalism has been too.
they are the gateway to meeting the real scientists
No I'd rather listen to the real scientists not their "gateway".
Except you've already decided **non-**scientists aren't scientists
FTFY. Indeed I have. It is you back-peddling with the oh but they're the gateway so that makes them scientists too.
If you'd actually read the research by scientists you'd know this is wrong.
Citation then of this alleged research. I don't relish searching for something that probably doesn't exist. Does it mention you by name as vital to the conservation work?
Says he who endorses the wholesale mass-slaughter of factory-raised cattle, but is somehow morally superior because someone else did it for him.
One is a necessity, the other isn't. You don't do it for food. The food is an added bonus. If it were only that you would not bother. You have already given the primary reasons, for which, don't forget, no killing is required.
I've told you repeatedly how to get the evidence and you've brushed it off as nonsense.
Telling me to go speak to hunters about how useful hunting because they're a gateway to the real scientists. How about you show me this evidence and we'll judge it on its merits and not an argument from authority (an authority with a vested interest).
It's not a likely scenario, but possible.
It was insane ramblings and you know it.
And splattered carcass? What? Not from a competent hunter.
Yes using even .22 on a little squirrel. Really stupid way to hunt. Inefficient, expensive, unlikely to succeed, likely to make a mess of the meal if it does, and scare off other animals in the process. I hope you never need to rely on hunting for food because your 'knowledge' of it sounds like a recipe for failure.
My venison chilli tells me there is plenty of utility to it.
But that isn't why you do it and the venison is already killed and prepared (and checked for cysts etc.) in the shop down the road. So no. That is not why you are doing this. That is what I am doing: calling bullshit on every excuse. I do not regard killing animals as wrong. Only if it's done for pleasure. I hear a lot of feeble excuses attempting to cover up that true purpose.
Is it somehow okay for them to do it for work but not personally?
Same goes for surgeons and prison guards and police and soldiers and pest control and so on. For crying out loud. How do you come up with this nonsense? Did that sound logical in your head before and/or after you typed it?
And again you don't aim for the head in like 99% of cases...The mandatory state-sponsored hunter classes teach that
Fantastic. These classes are teaching to avoid quick kills. What was your point about them?
their Masters Degrees in Conservation and all the models they follow don't mean jack.
Hypothetical people you imagine to be doing this. I'm not convinced. I'm sorry you so easily are. But it does support your beliefs that are necessary for your hobby so I guess that explains it.
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.
There's lots of things I've never done but I know what they are. The only challenging thing about hunting is sneaking up on the prey, which doesn't require a rifle. The killing bit is not at all challenging. The pointing and squeezing the trigger bit is probably less challenging than a lot of things we all do on a daily basis.
19th century Amazon jungle bushman trying to tell everyone that hunting skills are still necessary and not just great fun killing things
FTFY
-
Do you like to eat meat?
Yes there's nothing wrong with it. We all get eaten eventually. I suggest you read what I have actually been saying and not what you imagine I have.
I am calling bullshit on all the excuses that hobby hunters give for doing what they do. They don't need to. The meat is already killed and waiting for them but they ignore it and go and kill something else. Nobody else needs them to. They kill for pleasure but won't admit it. That they feel the need to make up weak excuses like these (challenge, day out in the country, helping control population) is indicative of that. If that's not a sign of a guilty conscience then I don't know what is. It sounds to me like an alcoholic explaining why their drinking is helpful and good for them.
-
Oh then pray tell: what humane place do they tell you to aim for? The neck? The groin?
Heart and lungs.
Yes using even .22 on a little squirrel. Really stupid way to hunt.
No
Inefficient
No
expensive,
No
unlikely to succeed
No
likely to make a mess of the meal if it does
No
and scare off other animals in the process.
And no. You're batting 0 for 0.
I hope you never need to rely on hunting for food because your 'knowledge' of it sounds like a recipe for failure.
Be honest, you were one of the international students who decided to go hunting and shot up a field of cattle because you didn't know what you were doing, right?
Fantastic. These classes are teaching to avoid quick kills. What was your point about them?
That is literally the opposite of what I said. I'm starting to feel like @blakeyrat!
I'm not even going to respond to the other points because you're literally making stuff up. You've lost the argument and now you're just pulling things out of your bum.
-
If hiking isn't challenging
I said it's not a sport. Please stop arguing with your shoulder aliens.
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.
And you wouldn't see through that as a bullshit excuse for blood-thirsty people to kill some animals? Oh I'm sure they'd say there were too many (and nobody would deliberately encourage the population to grow beforehand so that there were - no of course not).
Face it, you just really don't like hunting.
Nothing to face. It is cruelty for cruelty's sake. That's my point: all the excuses given by people are just that: excuses. There are better methods of population management. There are better ways to enjoy the countryside. There are greater and more enjoyable (and more useful) challengers. It's lie after lie.
Edit: is it fair if they only hunt things that can hunt you back, like bear?
Does the bear have a rifle?
-
Why the fuck do you people send me notifications about this bullshit. I already shitcanned this thread, go away.
-
What, no solidarity with those who have people literally saying we said the opposite of what we said?
-
I said it's not a sport.
Words and motives are exactly what @LurkerAbove wants them to be. Stop being such horrible people and agree that he's got this shit all figured out.
What, no solidarity with those who have people literally saying we said the opposite of what we said?
On TDWTF, it's every troll for himself.
-
There are many examples of behaviour in non-human animals that would be inexcusable in humans.
Again, I'm only trying to annoy the elf, who kept saying that nature is pure and peaceful and good.
-
Maybe we need a badge.
I take "shoulder alien" to mean: arguing with something that was not actually said (i.e. arguing with the shoulder alien). Is that not correct?
Now notice how much you have done that here. Practically every post you have made has been that: I have had to reiterate that I did not say the thing that is being argued against (and directed at me as refutation of my point). Even when the person quotes me and the quote obviously doesn't say what the shoulder alien says it does.
-
@mott555 said:
Says he who endorses the wholesale mass-slaughter of factory-raised cattle, but is somehow morally superior because someone else did it for him.
One is a necessity, the other isn't.
Wow. Just, wow.
Telling me to go speak to hunters about how useful hunting because they're a gateway to the real scientists. How about you show me this evidence and we'll judge it on its merits and not an argument from authority (an authority with a vested interest).
@mott555 never said to go talk to hunters. He said to go talk to wardens. He also told you that the wardens could likely put you in touch the conservation scientists you so desire to speak to.
You get a C- for reading comprehension, and a D for retention.
Yes using even .22 on a little squirrel. Really stupid way to hunt. Inefficient, expensive, unlikely to succeed, likely to make a mess of the meal if it does, and scare off other animals in the process. I hope you never need to rely on hunting for food because your 'knowledge' of it sounds like a recipe for failure.
A .22 (unless it has a high velocity powder load) is not likely to "splatter" a squirrel.
venison is already killed and prepared (and checked for cysts etc.) in the shop down the road
Probably wasn't farm raised. Which means someone hunted it. So much for your calling bullshit on that. If it was farm raised, there is a noticeable difference in taste between farm raised venison and wild venison.
As for checking the meat, most hunters I know take their kills to a trained butcher, who does those kind of checks for them.
Fantastic. These classes are teaching to avoid quick kills. What was your point about them?
You aim for the damn chest:
If you've learned to shoot and hit what you aim at, but are a novice big game hunter, the natural next question is, "where to shoot?" a big game animal. The answer is simple: aim for the heart/lung area in the animal's chest. It is the biggest immediately vital area, at least 8" in diameter in even small deer and pronghorn antelope, and a solid hit there with an adequate bullet will result in a quick kill.1
Same place you aim with a bow. The difference is, with a rifle, you can get deeper penetration, which is more likely to result in a quick, clean kill.
There's lots of things I've never done but I know what they are. The only challenging thing about hunting is sneaking up on the prey
You don't usually sneak up on the prey. You usually take the time to figure out where they are going to be, find a good vantage point, and then wait.
The pointing and squeezing the trigger bit is probably less challenging than a lot of things we all do on a daily basis.
Have you ever handled a rifle that is capable of bringing down large game?
-
I'm not even going to respond to the other points because you're literally making stuff up. You've lost the argument and now you're just pulling things out of your bum.
No
@mott555 said:No
@mott555 said:No
@mott555 said:No
@mott555 said:And no. You're batting 0 for 0.
You call that an argument?
-
You call that an argument?
It wasn't an argument to begin with. You're claiming .22 LR is expensive, inefficient, and will splatter a squirrel. Wrong on all points. Easily verified by talking to anyone who actually owns a .22 LR. You don't argue with someone who says all grass is purple, you tell them no, point them to a pshrink who can get them the help they need, and move on with life.
I like this @LurkerAbove guy. This thread is easy Like-farming outside of the Like thread.
-
Now notice how much you have done that here
I have expanded, but I haven't ignored your arguments. I've pointed out how they were wrong. I've said that your assertions of motive were terrible because you don't understand the subject and were assuming you knew the mindset of other people in a most bizarre fashion that contradicts my experience (and apparently others here).
-
Wow. Just, wow.
That they say they are hunting for food but the food is already there so they don't need to so it's bullshit. That is obviously not why they are doing it. If it were: I'm fine with it. But it isn't.
He said to go talk to wardens.
He called them scientists. I disagree.
You get a C- for reading comprehension, and a D for retention.
Whether I'm interested in your grades depends on what grades I would give you. So far you're just reiterating the same tired old arguments orthogonal to the point I was making. I repeat: I'm calling out the bullshit excuses.
A .22 (unless it has a high velocity powder load) is not likely to "splatter" a squirrel.
Why take the chance? Seriously? A rifle isn't the best way to catch anything for food, it's just the most fun. (And before you say "well what's wrong with that?" this is an insane hypothetical scenario where such hunting is necessary. Can we please get back to the real world where it isn't?)
You aim for the damn chest:
Which is quicker than some places but I wouldn't describe it as a quick death. There's many dead soldiers who would tell you if they could that it certainly ain't painless or instantaneous. If you wish to minimise suffering then don't shoot it at all.
You don't usually sneak up on the prey. You usually take the time to figure out where they are going to be, find a good vantage point, and then wait.
However you do it. That bit is the challenge not the squeezing the trigger. Take a camera instead.
Have you ever handled a rifle that is capable of bringing down large game?
Does an assault-rifle count? Yes it kicks a bit but that "challenge" is after the targets fate is sealed.
-
You're claiming .22 LR is expensive, inefficient, and will splatter a squirrel.
Compared to a trap? Yes, infinitely more. It's a stupid way to do it.
-
That they say they are hunting for food but the food is already there so they don't need to so it's bullshit. That is obviously not why they are doing it. If it were: I'm fine with it. But it isn't.
That's not what I was getting at. You say the killing of farm raised cattle is "necessary", but you can't accept hunting. That is some crazy dissociation on your part.
He called them scientists. I disagree.
Go back and re-read. He said the wardens could put you in touch with the scientists.
A rifle isn't the best way to catch anything for food
Ok, what's a better way to catch a deer or elk? How would you propose bringing down a javelina?
-
I said it's not a sport. Please stop arguing with your shoulder aliens.
Apologies, I read that and assumed that you felt it wasn't a sport because it wasn't challenging (I haven't had enough coffee yet to deal with the wall of circular text up there).
There are better methods of population management.
Everyone in my folks' small town (and their herbaceous borders) would love to know what these are. They have a serious aversion to people shooting the deer right in town but chasing them out of your yard with a broom is proving ineffective.
Does the bear have a rifle?
I may have found the next extreme sport. We would need to train the bears to shoot properly though. Wouldn't want any gut-shot hunters wandering around cruelly bleeding to death.
-
Which is quicker than some places but I wouldn't describe it as a quick death.
2 - 4 seconds isn't a quick death? My rifle loads are around 4,000 joules of kinetic energy. They don't know what hit them. That much energy instantly overloads the central nervous system.
There's many dead soldiers who would tell you if they could that it certainly ain't painless or instantaneous. If you wish to minimise suffering then don't shoot it at all.
Military bullets are not hunting bullets. In the military, we're talking 800 - 1000 joule loads, using full-metal jacket rounds that are not likely to stop in the target so in practice it's like 400 joules to the target. That hurts.
Does an assault-rifle count? Yes it kicks a bit but that "challenge" is after the targets fate is sealed.
Are we talking real assault rifles or the media's nonsense definition of assault rifle that includes just about every firearm manufactured since the Middle Ages?
He said to go talk to wardens.
He called them scientists. I disagree.
@abarker is rather generous with his grading. I'd go with F because you've clearly misread something that was explained in detail multiple times by multiple users.
If you're a troll though, I'd rate you a B-, maybe a B.
-
@abarker is rather generous with his grading. I'd go with F because you've clearly misread something that was explained in detail multiple times by multiple users.
Especially after this:
@abarker said:
[@mott555] said to go talk to wardens. He also told you that the wardens could likely put you in touch the conservation scientists you so desire to speak to. *
He called them scientists. I disagree.
* Inserted the full context of my quote for dramatic effect.
-
What a stupid argument: you've never done it so how can you know?
Sounds like you were actually getting "you're wrong so you must not know"
listening to other people
like you are in this thread?
-
assuming you knew the mindset of other people in a most bizarre fashion that contradicts my experience
They have said their so-called reasons for doing it. I'm not putting words in their mouths:
Nice day out in the country
Problem: No killing required for that.
Controlling animal populations
Problem: They're kidding themselves if they think they (as amateurs) are making any real difference, I don't believe most wardens have the foggiest ideas about chaos theory and population dynamics so the quotas are probably utterly arbitrary. There are better ways of controlling populations than shooting them - it's really admitting they haven't mastered the science of it to resort to that.
For food
Problem: The food is already there for them. It can't be that. There is no necessity there.
For a challenge
Problem: There are so many enjoyable past-times that are challenging that don't involve killing things. The killing bit of the hobby is the bit that isn't challenging. The stalking or ambushing surely is and is fun but you can shoot the animal with a camera for an identical challenge. Lining up the shot and pulling the trigger is easy Hit/miss ratios not withstanding: a child could do it (and some do).Are any of those in bold not reasons that have been given? Am I missing one?
Doesn't a plethora of weak reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny not ring alarm bells?
Doesn't it sound to you like someone justifying the act after the fact?So no I'm not assuming I know the mindset. The problem is the only thing left, when all the bullshit is cancelled out, is the killing for killing's sake. How can one not at least suspect that that is the real reason for it?
-
-
lol. This is SpectateSwamp-level self-awareness right here.
-
@abarker is rather generous with his grading. I'd go with F because you've clearly misread something that was explained in detail multiple times by multiple users.
I'm surprised I got a like from him on my post honestly. Then again, might be the same reading problem, where he spotted the "domestication" and missed the "tools". Or a naive definition of a tool which doesn't involve guns...
Crap... now I'm gonna get pulled in here, won't I?
-
That's not what I was getting at. You say the killing of farm raised cattle is "necessary", but you can't accept hunting. That is some crazy dissociation on your part.
No. I don't believe them when they give that as the reason because the food is already available without them having to. They must do it for another reason. If it was nothing but a chore then they would not bother. This is elementary psychology.
-
Are any of those in bold not reasons that have been given? Am I missing one?
I don't know. Doesn't really matter. See below...
Doesn't a plethora of weak reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny not ring alarm bells?
The problem is in believing these are "weak reasons" or that such a thing matters. They have an activity that gives them all of those things. You think they are terrible people because they don't have a rose colored vision of nature like you do.
when all the bullshit is cancelled out
But not everyone agrees on the definition of bullshit.
How can one not at least suspect that that is the real reason for it?
You can certainly do that, but since I don't agree with your judgments, I don't have a good reason to come up with extra motivations.
I don't believe them when they give that as the reason because the food is already available without them having to.
Just like you call bullshit on people who live next to McDonald's but like to grill their own burgers?
-
I'm surprised I got a like from him on my post honestly.
Because I am not anti-killing for food or anti-technology or any other such rubbish.
I am anti-bullshit excuses for killing for pleasure.
-
No. I don't believe them when they give that as the reason because the food is already available without them having to.
Really? Where is venison readily available? I can easily find beef, pork, chicken, and turkey. Lamb is pretty difficult to find, but doable. Want venison? You have three choices:
- know a hunter
- go kill it yourself
- live close to an appropriate farm (there aren't many of those).
I know from experience that eating venison is very different from eating any other meat. The only thing that keeps me from hunting right now is the cost.
-
You think they are terrible people because they don't have a rose colored vision of nature like you do.
Shoulder aliens again. Please revise. What do I think they are? Quote me please. And what vision of nature do I have? (Notice I have said that killing for food or any other necessity - if it really is a necessity - is fine, of course it is.)
You can certainly do that, but since I don't agree with your judgments, I don't have a good reason to come up with extra motivations.
I was talking about who was guilty of shoulder aliens (putting words into people's mouths). You have done it again just now. I don't see where I have. I might have (I've typed a lot) but it's not my style and I've not been trying to. But "You think they are terrible people" is a case in point. I didn't say that and don't think that. That is shoulder aliens in a nutshell.
-
Really? Where is venison readily available? I can easily find beef, pork, chicken, and turkey. Lamb is pretty difficult to find, but doable. Want venison? You have three choices
Or just don't. Is that word not in your dictionary? Do you have to have something because you decide you want it? It sounds like an excuse to me.
-
What do I think they are? Quote me please
I'm going to paraphrase. You think they really hunt because they like being cruel to animals, but in order not to sound like horrible people they come up with other excuses.
I was talking about who was guilty of shoulder aliens (putting words into people's mouths). You have done it again just now. I don't see where I have.
Eh...saying that they like the killing. How many times have you said that?
But "You think they are terrible people" is a case in point. I didn't say that and don't think that. That is shoulder aliens in a nutshell.
No, it's an obvious conclusion based on the sadism that you ascribe to them. I guess I'll concede that maybe you just think they're making terrible decisions but that they aren't terrible people. A distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned here.
-
May almighty Gaia bless you with the souls of ten thousand blades of grass.
-
I know people who take and eat roadkill deer. I'm curious to see your opinion on that.
For what it's worth a rifle round to the heart and lungs is a far quicker and less painful death than getting hit by a car, suffering multiple bone fractures, and then bleeding out an hour later.
-
Do you have to have something because you decide you want it?
Do we have to not do it because random internet dude is convinced we shouldn't?
-
Doubt ye not the words of the most mighty and speechful High Priest of Almighty Gaia.
-
He also told you that the wardens could likely put you in touch the conservation scientists you so desire to speak to.
That neither of you have spoken to? Wardens are not necessarily scientists. People taking samples are not necessarily scientists. People wearing lab coats are not necessarily scientists. People with diplomas and writing thesis aren't either. Is your idea of a scientist something from Richard Scarry's Busy Busy World?
Inserted the full context of my quote for dramatic effect.
What dramatic effect? Another shoulder alien on your part now? I didn't say they wouldn't but he did call them scientists (if you dip into a conversation like that please realise you might not know everything that has been said before). Since when do I have to look up proof for his assertions. I don't see anybody doing that for mine.
-
I support your proof, your mightiness!
-
Wardens are not necessarily scientists.
I think we've discovered the new bottom of the scale for reading comprehension.
That neither of you have spoken to?
And you know whom we've spoken to how? And even if you did, you're once again wrong.
-
Do we have to not do it because random internet dude is convinced we shouldn't?
No of course not but maybe you should if you rationally conclude that it is actually perhaps immoral. And you're not going to do that unless you stop and question assumptions and arguments from authority.
If you are accusing me of "I am right, you are wrong" when you read what mott555 and yourself have said ("no, no, no, no, you're wrong. You know nothing about this", etc.) then that is rank hypocrisy. I have given reasons for what I am saying. I'm hearing very little reasoning back - just perceived truisms.
-
I have given reasons for what I am saying.
But your reasons are basically "All grass is purple!" It's beyond reasoning.
Is your idea of a scientist
-
I think we've discovered the new bottom of the scale for reading comprehension.
Have you already forgotten what you first said? Let me quote you for you:
Ask any game warden or talk to anyone who works at any conservation department...They're the scientists who actually have degrees and study real-life data on this topic, not me.
I comprehended that perfectly well thank you very much. It seems to be you that has the difficulty with it.
-
But your reasons are basically "All grass is purple!" It's beyond reasoning.
Oh superb! What a great argument. Thank you for putting such thought in to it.
-
I comprehended that perfectly well thank you very much.
If you say so.
LurkerAbove.DemonstratedReadingComprehension--
-
Oh superb! What a great argument. Thank you for putting such thought in to it.
Great, thanks! I worked on it about as hard as you have been!
-
No of course not but maybe you should if you rationally conclude that it is actually perhaps immoral.
Agreed.
I have given reasons for what I am saying. I'm hearing very little reasoning back - just perceived truisms.
No, you're just dismissing the reasoning as such. See, if you said something like, "I want those things hunters say interest them about hunting, but I hate the thought of killing an animal, so I don't hunt," I'd respect that and we'd be cool. But what you're saying is coming across as, "I want those things hunters say interest them about hunting, but I hate the thought of killing an animal, and they are really in it for the killing, so hunting is morally wrong."
-
Forgive us weak, pathetic humans, for unblessed as ye, we do not receive the absolute reason of Almighty Gaia in the silences of our feeble minds. It is not for us lesser beings to deny thy enlightened words, backed with all the most true and holy power of the universe!
-
Wardens are not necessarily scientists. People taking samples are not necessarily scientists. People wearing lab coats are not necessarily scientists. People with diplomas and writing thesis aren't either
Is your idea of a scientist "someone who will back up @LurkerAbove"?
-
What dramatic effect?
The dramatic effect of emphasizing that you were shoulder-aliening me. You said that I called game wardens scientists. I never said any such thing.
Another shoulder alien on your part now?
No. See above.
Wardens are not necessarily scientists.
Didn't say they are.
People taking samples are not necessarily scientists.
Didn't say they are.
People wearing lab coats are not necessarily scientists.
Didn't say they are.
People with diplomas and writing thesis aren't either.
Didn't say ... Wait, you're giving a lot of "aren't necessarily scientists" examples. Who is a scientist?
if you dip into a conversation like that please realise you might not know everything that has been said before
I have read the conversation. I've only "dipped in" to contribute. One thing you should keep in mind: sometimes people mis-speak and modify their statements to clarify what they initially meant to say. I take @mott555's initial statement that game wardens are scientists to be one of those cases, given his more recent statements that the game wardens work with the scientists. Especially since he has repeated the latter version, and not the former version.
Filed Under: @LurkerAbove needs lessons in reading comprehension
-
But what you're saying is coming across as, "I want those things hunters say interest them about hunting, but I hate the thought of killing an animal, and they are really in it for the killing, so hunting is morally wrong."
But I have not said that. Shoulder aliens again. I said: I don't buy the excuses and gave reasons for that (none of it is "I am right you are wrong". If there's a flaw in my logic point it out but don't give me arguments from authority or straw men or other such crap.)
All I am hearing back is "you're wrong". Scientists (not really) say so and you don't know until you've tried it. The first is contentious. The second is missing the point. I think killing for please is reprehensible no matter what is being killed. I don't buy the other excuses being given for the killing,
Conservation biology - Wikipedia
