If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   NPR asks the question: Are hunters committing murder?   (npr.org) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, NPR, OneKind, murders, Winchester rifle  
•       •       •

8820 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2013 at 8:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-07 08:59:53 PM
10 votes:
Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.
2013-02-07 08:51:40 PM
8 votes:
In many cases, hunting as part of wildlife management helps control the populations of animals whose natural predators have dwindled due to humans. I don't hunt and it's not anything I care to do, but it can serve a legitimate purpose.
2013-02-07 08:39:59 PM
7 votes:
Yes. Tasty, tasty murder.
2013-02-07 08:41:22 PM
5 votes:
Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!
2013-02-07 09:10:56 PM
4 votes:

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


... and yet, if you're not a vegetarian you're depending on other people to do your dirty work for you, just executing animals in an assembly line process so you can have your steak.

Hunters earn it. The animals have a far chance to get away. Thousands upon thousands of hunters come up empty every year. They catch, clean, butcher, and consume their kills. Their food didn't come from the freezer section of the supermarket.
2013-02-07 08:55:29 PM
4 votes:

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically  LEGALLY no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


FTFY

Murder is a legal concept. There is no murder in the jungle.
2013-02-07 09:58:05 PM
3 votes:
Kahlil Gibran, "On Eating and Drinking:"

Would that you could live on the fragrance of the earth, and like an air plant be sustained by the light.
But since you must kill to eat, and rob the newly born of its mother's milk to quench your thirst, let it then be an act of worship.
And let your board stand an altar on which the pure and the innocent of forest and plain are sacrificed for that which is purer and still more innocent in man.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."
2013-02-07 09:08:41 PM
3 votes:
Short answer: No

Feeling this way, it's hard for me to understand the pull to hunt animalsunless the meat is actually needed to feed one's family, or the hunting is managed and results in good outcomes for the animal population in question. (This can be the case when high population numbers would otherwise consign individuals to starvation and slow, miserable deaths).

A: You don't need to hunt because you're too poor to feed your family. Some people choose to hunt because it's cheaper. Some chose to hunt because they can get more meat at once, so they aren't trying to buy a side of beef. Others do it because the meat isn't pumped full of hormones, fed GenMod feed, and has less fat.

B: Hunting IS managed, it's why we have seasons and limits. This isn't just a whim, this is to manage the populations and lessen then instances of starvation.

C: If hunting is murder, so is slaughtering the cows for distribution to your local grocery store.
2013-02-07 08:56:35 PM
3 votes:

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being


It's actually the unlawful killing of another person...important distinction.
2013-02-07 08:53:19 PM
3 votes:

MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?


I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.
2013-02-08 12:20:08 AM
2 votes:

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.


Fark, by and large, is populated by the 18-35 demographic from sub/urban environments. They are varying degrees of very-to-completely cut off from the reality of what goes into making their comfortable little middle-class lives a reality. They have a vague, nebulous idea that stuff happens in the background, but they have little comprehension of the amount of manual, unpleasant tasks that go into creating what they assume to be a ubiquitously sanitized world. To them, there's no excuse for things to be done in the most idealistic way they can think of, because they truly don't grasp the difficulties of the world, or that most people on this planet don't have their lifestyle.

That's not to criticize Farkers, it's just stating how it is. In a sense, it shows just how successful those who provide the lifestyle to people in the Fark demographic really are - they've made it so comfortable and easy for its beneficiaries that they really have no idea what's behind the curtain. This thread - especially after comments like mine - will be filled with people who will try to say they actually do have a clue, citing either some documentaries they saw on TV or the one or two incidents in life where they actually saw the real work that creates their world, but they don't know the difference between knowing something exists intellectually and actually understanding the intricacies - and the often gross/unpleasant realities - of the processes that make their tech-driven lives possible.

So yes, you end up with a lot of absolute ignorance bordering on stupidity when it comes to topics like food processing, hunting, firearms, etc - but that same worldview is critical to our advancement, because it's an ideal, and ideals are worth chasing. Those same "clueless" people are often the same ones who come up with a better way of doing things, from a technical advancement to a practical application of ethics. So, while it's ok to point and laugh at them, do keep in mind they have their place in the world.
2013-02-07 09:10:46 PM
2 votes:

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.


This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.
2013-02-07 09:06:35 PM
2 votes:
Don't be silly, if left unchecked, overpopulation would force many to be unable to sustain themselves and they will start to suffer and starve. Hunting is doing them a favor.

www.mnn.com
2013-02-07 09:04:07 PM
2 votes:

Big Man On Campus: Is NPR run by furries?

If so, I guess I can understand their bias.


I'm pretty liberal on almost everything, but NPR has been really pushing the anti-gun angle.  I realize they are just covering the nonsense coming from various legislators, but I wish they would cover it in the same manner they covered the idiots making the 'legitimate rape' and similar comments.
2013-02-07 08:52:33 PM
2 votes:
Deer don't have feelings. They're evil hellbeasts who like to run in front of me at night on the highway.

But some hunters do manage to shoot other humans every year, that probably qualifies.
2013-02-07 08:51:18 PM
2 votes:
done in one.
2013-02-07 08:42:26 PM
2 votes:
cdn2.mamapop.com
2013-02-08 10:04:53 AM
1 votes:

GUTSU: Want to know why I hunt things like racoons, bears, coyotes? It's because I don't want things like that on my property. I can kill as many racoons, porcupines and coyotes as I want, in NYS there isn't a bag limit so everyone I see gets a bullet to the head. I can only shoot a single bear a year so I just give it to my neighbor. Everything else gets thrown in a pile in my woods.

And honestly? I couldn't care less, I don't need porcupines destroying my trees, racoons potentially giving my dogs rabies, coyotes killing my cats, or the DEC dumping problem bears into my area. Got a problem with that, well go fark yourself.


Way to live in harmony with the world around you, dude.

\if you aren't trolling, you are a complete farking asshole
2013-02-08 07:19:18 AM
1 votes:
FTFA:
I'm tempted to accept the term "murder" as it's (warning: graphic photos) and, who go after families of elephants and great apes.

Actually, trophy hunters aren't the ones who are a problem from an ecological standpoint.  It's the people who need to hunt in order to eat (subsistence hunters), and the people who hunt from purely economic motives (market hunters).

We should encourage trophy hunting, instead of denigrating it, because generally trophy hunters are the ones who are restrained in targeting their animals, taking only the best.  Since it's an avocation, and they wish to continue doing it, widespread and regulated sport hunting is a powerful game management tool to keep and maintain healthy populations of animals.

That has been the experience with the "charismatic megafauna" in North America:  After subsistence and market hunting was banned, and only regulated sport hunting was allowed, the populations have rebounded to the point where we actually have *TOO* many animals in some areas.
2013-02-08 02:11:14 AM
1 votes:
animal cruelty
veal
beef
dog
pets

So we have laws against cruelty to animals. I am ok with this.
Veal is yummy. Some people think that crosses the line to cruelty. But some of those people still eat beef. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Beef is yummy. Some people wont eat beef. But hey have pets? How is enslaving an animal not cruelty?
Dog is ok. Many cultures eat dog. Out culture has problems with this for some reason. Even those that eat meat. Which is even more hypocritical.

so what were we talking about again?
some people want to force their beliefs on others?
We already draw those lines in the US. I can eat veal but not dog.
People, like the author of this article, will never stop until their religion is the law of the land.
Can you imagine living in a country where you cant eat beef or pork? No, neither can I.

JUST say no to Vegans!
2013-02-08 01:46:19 AM
1 votes:
I hunt. not as much as I used to, but I still like to get out in the woods on occasion and save a little on the grocery bill and acquire some meat that I cannot get easily anywhere else. I was always taught any animal I kill has sacrificed for my family. They have myself and my loved ones the ultimate gift. I was taught to appreciate that, and in my religious days even pray for them. There was no "thrill of the kill" only the excitement of the hunt and the joy of being in the outdoors. The patience, the marksmanship, and the tasty prize that comes later.

When it comes to meat I aim to be as non-hypocritical as possible. I am 100% willing to take the life of whatever it is that is on plate little regret. If the grocery store offered discounts if I personally dispatched the bovine carrying my burgers I would gladly do so. Every bit of meat I consume I as well aware of where it came from and understand what had to happen in order for me have it. I appreciate that very much. I will make sure my children understand as well and never take it for granted.
2013-02-07 11:52:19 PM
1 votes:

IgG4: trappedspirit: IgG4: Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.

Did you think my Hobo-stew wasn't authentic?

You know,  one of the weird things from the last couple wars was the involvement of the lawyers in target selection. Like you had to be able to legally defend actions in war, the converse is also weird, that we should feel obligated to take to trial every 15 year old kid who picked up an AK or tossed a grenade. Those actions are part of war and not really subject normal legal structures. These are soldiors whose job it is to kill each other. That is not murder, it is war.

Killing people and eating them is still murder, if it is done without consent. With consent is still gross, but it is definitely a grey area.


You never mentioned anything about consent.
2013-02-07 11:46:58 PM
1 votes:

hitlersbrain: In the 'olden days', when people had super immune systems (or died) they would let the meat rot for a while to get rid of the gamey taste. Yeah, they'd rather eat rotten meat than 'fresh' venison.


That's called "aging."  I do it all the time, even with morally superior store-bought meat.  Some day you will eat at a nicer steakhouse than Outback and will see the light.
2013-02-07 11:42:35 PM
1 votes:

parkthebus: hitlersbrain: phrawgh: hitlersbrain: People reveling in death... sure... that's real healthy.

Why do you hate our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Kingdom?

Hey, he started it. No one is killing in MY name.

I'll kill and eat one in your name then. It will have to be a fish 'cause hunting season doesn't start in these parts until September. Walleye or perch? I'm going tomorrow.


I always ask the fish I catch "If you grant me three wishes I won't gut you and fry you up."

no takers thus far

fishie fishie fishie
2013-02-07 11:38:54 PM
1 votes:
On a lighter note:


Well, where to start . . . I have a house with about a 150 'of lake shoreline as my back yard and an 70' walkway to a floating dock.Sounds great, got good pics (don't know how to post them), good times . . .  but all is well until sitting on the back deck for a sunrise or sundown and realizing how many effing creatures there are and what they do.

The ducks and herons and other water birds are beautiful but full of shiat.They crap all over my walkway and dock when they roost and get warm in the sun.The squirrels are just as cute as rodents can be expected to be except they chew through soffits and invade the house and then chew wires and plumbing.Occasionally the grackles and seagulls invade my yard in numbers (100s) and make it impossible to talk with their constant noise not to mention their shiat and stench.Actually, if I am not out there I don't mind, it is nature, why I bought the place.

So what am I to do.I could become a murderer and get a 20 Gauge with bird shot or a .22 short or long and cap as many as possible. I would consider it justified elimination of nuisance.

My problem is a public park that is popular with the kids about 300 yards away, in my primary direction of fire. I cannot risk a shot, at all.

So, I got me a paint gun and I mark the bastards.Guess what, it will knock a squirrel off a limb.They hit the ground looking about at what the H happened then take off not to be seen for a while.The thrill of the hunt with no life damage, that I know of.

Just beware, the sky-rats (seagulls) will come over and argue with you when they realize you are trying to run them off instead of feed them.Bastards.

I have not been a hunter for more than 30 years because of all the second guessing myself guilt about the senselessness crap but now that I have targets that move and I don't seriously hurt them I think I'm lucky and in good shape.It is fun to plink the creatures, it just is.And I don't have clean up a body.
2013-02-07 11:07:53 PM
1 votes:

spidermilk: At a certain point if deer are overpopulated there isn't food for all of them or the risk of disease increases- hunters are helping with that. And I don't think most hunters are thinking 'I WANT TO HURT THIS DEER' but instead are thinking 'ok, I gotta find tracks, I gotta figure out where they go, I gotta get in a good spot and wait, then I gotta be quiet and hit this deer with a good shot'- basically it is a challenge.


Hey hey hey, this is Fark.  Take your experienced and well-reasoned logic to them wickerpedias
2013-02-07 11:02:17 PM
1 votes:
Carthax:

I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.

I really hope this is a troll, otherwise you're a horrible human being and a worse sportsman. Apart from not knowing how to zero your scope, if you wanted to make the deer's death easier, if not less painful, you would have PUT A SHOT BEHIND ITS EAR TO END ITS SUFFERING AFTER IT WAS DOWN. Was it really too much effort to pull the trigger again or were you too busy getting in touch with your inner vagina?
2013-02-07 10:58:23 PM
1 votes:

skylabdown: Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?


I hate to say it, but this happens  all of the farking time in a democracy.

All of a sudden, everyone is an expert on:

* foreign diplomacy,
* warfare,
* welfare,
* healthcare,
* civil rights,

and a gigantic list of bullcrap on which anyone over the age of 18 (and isn't a felon) can vote.
2013-02-07 10:53:35 PM
1 votes:

IgG4: Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.


Did you think my Hobo-stew wasn't authentic?
2013-02-07 10:48:32 PM
1 votes:
HighlanderRPI:  Does your regime have any openings in Management and if so, where can I apply?

I could use a chief scout.  The fact that I have to work all the time really reduces my regime's slaughter efficacy.  What are your qualifications?  We are an equal opportunity regime, and welcome any assistance we can get in identifying where and when to pursue our murderous ways.
2013-02-07 10:41:19 PM
1 votes:

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


Same for sex then right?  Sex without intent to procreate is BLOODY STUPID!?

People do such things not for the result, but the pleasure of the act.  It is in our nature to enjoy such things, a gift of Darwin, so to speak, that granted us better odds.

It's entertaining that one argument here is liberal(hunting = murder) and the other is more of a christian sort of conservative(recreational sex = evil), yet they use the same flawed logic.

Many liberal vs conservative arguments suffer from the same base moral-judgement that one accuses the other of.
2013-02-07 10:39:18 PM
1 votes:
Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.

I watched an episode from the final season of No Reservations a while ago. It was set in the Ozarks I guess, or some other equally backward redneck hot bed. They took Tony duck hunting, miraculously for this show, they actually got some ducks. Not one of the Bubbas that was accompanying Bourdain on that day knew how to cook duck or liked to eat duck. It took the city boy to show them how to freaking cook a duck breast with crispy skin to medium. They had lived their all their lives, spent god knows how much on their farking mossy oak EVERYTHING so they could go out and shoot ducks that they never farking ate.

Idiots, murdering idiots.
2013-02-07 10:36:52 PM
1 votes:

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


You're wrong.  Just about any hunter will tell you that all the fun is over once you pull the trigger.  Every hunter I know is in it for the hunt.

"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift, he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surely brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job."
Jose Ortega y Gasset
2013-02-07 10:23:45 PM
1 votes:
Yes, hunting is murder.

In the same way that antibiotics are weapons of mass destruction....
2013-02-07 10:09:30 PM
1 votes:

lostcat: "Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?"

Maybe someplace, but it sure as hell isn't going to happen on Fark.




As I imagine the conversation" Hunter: "OK, I don't object to your not hunting if you don't want to."

Anti: " Great! As long as you don't hunt because I don't want you to."
2013-02-07 10:08:20 PM
1 votes:

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


Yes that is true.  When I was a teenager it was an absolutely heart pounding level of excitement.  There's a reason they have the term called "buck fever".  It's when you become so excited at the presence of the deer that you aren't able to function appropriately to shoot.  However I am older now.  I don't really hunt much and not much of a gun fanatic but I do own a shotgun and I do go pheasant hunting a couple times per year.  My perspective now is I had a nice afternoon, getting good exercise in nature on public nature land whose only reason it isn't plowed up is so that I could be there.  Meanwhile dozens of species of plants and animals go undisturbed and flourish.  The pheasant itself is a foreign species native to Asia.  We are only allowed to shoot the roosters which has zero effect on reproduction and population since they are not monogamous and in fact studies show a 5 or 10 to 1 hen to rooster ratio is preferable.  I shoot on average 5 or so a year.  I paid in taxes (license fees and ammo tax) probably $50 for that privilege and it was a healthy, lean source of protein.  Additionally it tastes like chicken.  Instead of a chicken and wild rice soup it was pheasant and wild rice soup.

In the end I figure what I did was trade the life of a wild animal that lived free and comfortable until the last 5 seconds of its life for that of a pen raised chicken that will not need to be raised and not need to suffer 6 months in a cage with its top beak cut off so it doesn't peck the others while it can barely if at all turn around in the cage.  It is understandable how a vegetarian can be opposed to hunting and quite consistent ethically.  It is not understandable to oppose hunting while eating animals that were raised suffering.  I once had someone who was eating veal tell me they opposed hunting.  I just chuckled.  I refuse to eat veal.

So yes it is disgusting however it would seem that much less meat in general would be consumed and there would be significantly more vegetarians in the world if they had to kill their food.

/has free range laying hens too.
//and bees.  honey bees for delicious honey.
2013-02-07 10:08:00 PM
1 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: taurusowner: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.

Except it also applies to farking a six year-old.


not entirely... as we were all once six years old, and can at least on some level realize that "being farked" at that age is not something you would have been able to consent to.
2013-02-07 09:55:25 PM
1 votes:
SUMMON DITTYBOPPER!


/NPR isn't even pretending anymore to be objective
2013-02-07 09:52:14 PM
1 votes:

KidneyStone: BronyMedic: It's not murder if you're intending to use as much of the animal as possible in tasty, tasty recipes. So remember that next time your city has a homeless problem.

/I'm not a...hah..."SERIAL" killer....

I've not seen any coyote recipes.


Killing coyotes is like killing rats.  Big big rats.
2013-02-07 09:49:56 PM
1 votes:

lostcat: "Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?"


Why should they?
2013-02-07 09:44:56 PM
1 votes:

taurusowner: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.


Except it also applies to farking a six year-old.
2013-02-07 09:42:52 PM
1 votes:

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.
2013-02-07 09:16:55 PM
1 votes:
So does this mean vegetarians are cereal killers?
2013-02-07 09:08:16 PM
1 votes:

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.


pfft this is like having someone say "you don't know the difference between mexican brown and china rocks yet YOU are telling me that heroin is bad.
2013-02-07 09:05:33 PM
1 votes:

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


Your change is one penny.
Have a nice day.
2013-02-07 09:04:31 PM
1 votes:
I've never hunted, and I probably never will- it just seems like a pain in the ass to me, and I would much rather just buy my meat all neatly sliced and wrapped up in plastic. This shiat is retarded, however.
2013-02-07 09:03:48 PM
1 votes:
No , but I would like to hunt the people who came up with the idea of hunting from the internet and helicopters
2013-02-07 09:02:41 PM
1 votes:

Raw_fishFood: Well, the Manhunters do.

/No man escapes the Manhunters.


I was rather disappointed at that. I always thought The Martian Manhunter was a sci-fi themed gay porn.

How...unexpected.

skylabdown: Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?


Tell us your feelings on people who are not straight, white Christians of the protestant faith?
2013-02-07 08:58:50 PM
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: Yes. Tasty, tasty murder.


Came for this ^^ leaving satisfied.
2013-02-07 08:58:11 PM
1 votes:
Man I could really murder a nice venison steak right about now
2013-02-07 08:54:09 PM
1 votes:

Government Fromage: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.


Just the guys who make the hunting shows.
2013-02-07 08:53:15 PM
1 votes:
Meat's meat, and a man's gotta eat!
2013-02-07 08:52:20 PM
1 votes:
Only if two go out, but one returns.
2013-02-07 08:52:15 PM
1 votes:

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?
2013-02-07 08:52:03 PM
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: Yes. Tasty, tasty murder.


and we are done.
 
Displayed 55 of 55 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report