|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
I personally don't hunt (I prefer to shoot with a camera), but moderate hunting is okay with me. My dad has complete respect for the animals he kills, and we actually eat the meat, not just mount the animal on the wall. Some people are a little too excessive about it, but like I said, the ocasional hunting trip is not that horrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I could not handle killing an animal unless (1) I was planning on eating it or (2) it was planning on eating me. But if other people want to hunt, isn't that their business? I mean, who has the right to say who doesn't need guns of their own?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
It's extremely difficult to die from a lack of sport.
quote:
Originally posted by Sonhaven:
So....hunting is dangerous therefore out law it....along with bungy-jumping, skydiving, or any other extreme sport you can think of.
What Sammitch meant was that you need to eat to live, but you don't need to murder to live. Hence, difficult to die from a lack of sport. Hunting being dangerous never came into it.
quote:
Originally posted by Sonhaven:
What the difference between callously killing an animal for sport and eating a Big Mac with out giving a thought about where it came from?
In both instances an animal was killed for personal enjoyment.
Who eats solely for personal enjoyment?
Human beings need to eat to live. An animal dying so that people can survive and the life cycle continue is one thing. It's the way nature's worked since just about the beginning of everything. Nobody takes pleasure in the killing of the animal, but it's necessary.
An animal dying out of nothing more than sport is an entirely different thing. If marksmanship is your sport, then head down to a shooting range, or find yourself some tin cans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 680
= 500+ posts
|
|
= 500+ posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 680 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
But shooting... you're launching a piece of steel at an animal. You're too chickenshit to even be near it. Hooray for marksmanship.
So let me get this straight, you're a coward for using the most effective tool for the job. Maybe you're right, I don't think people should use shovels...just because they're just too chicken shit to get their hands dirty. ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
And Danny, I see what you're saying. I agree. I don't hunt...but what right do I have to tell someone not to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
[As to the "National Guard" argument, that argument has risen in the last twenty years. Almost no serious anti-gun group uses it because const. scholars of all ideology have agreed that it holds no const. weight. ***The FF wanted to assure that the government was a government of the people by leaving a little fear of the masses in the hearts of the elite (which was suprising seeing as how the FF WERE to be be the elite).
[/QB]
You are correct.
In America, rights, by definition, belong to individuals.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," while governments derive their "powers" from the consent of the governed. The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government.
In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are undeniably the rights of individuals. As the Supreme Court recognized in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990),
- 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.'. . . It suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are a part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
Future U.S. President James Madison introduced in the House of Representatives the amendments that became our Bill of Rights. In notes for his speech proposing the amendments, Madison wrote that "They relate first to private rights." Several days later, William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry, telling him that "[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty."
William Grayson, Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights.
A week later, Tench Coxe referred to the Second Amendment in the Federal Gazette, writing that "the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
Samuel Adams warned that "The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.
The Framers recognized that self-government requires the People's access to bullets as well as ballots. The armed citizenry (militia) was expected to protect against not only foreign enemies, but also a potentially tyrannical federal government. In short, the right to bear arms was intended to ensure that our government remained in the hands of the People.
Akil Reed Amar and Alan Hirsch, For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights, (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1998).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
An animal dying out of nothing more than sport is an entirely different thing. If marksmanship is your sport, then head down to a shooting range, or find yourself some tin cans.
The "sport" of hunting is actually a bi-product of a larger concern. Animal populations, like human, do indeed grow year by year due to reproduction (I think all of us here have heard of that). If there is no hunting of these animals, their populations become larger than the food source and leads to starvation. Hunting helps keep these numbers down. Each state governments here in the U.S. monitor the population and release hunting limits based on the current population. So it's not just Bubba and Earl going out and seeing what they can kill. It's a way of preventing the entire animal population from starving to death.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,539
I'm just sayin' 10000+ posts
|
|
I'm just sayin' 10000+ posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,539 |
I don't own a gun.I'm not opposed to guns,I just don't feel the need to own one.I've used guns in the past.I'm ok as far as accuracy(i.e. I can hit the broad side of the barn & possibly a large object standing close by).While in the military I had to go to M-16 training wherein,we learned about the weapon,got one,disassemble & reassemble it & then shoot it to see how good(or bad)we were with it.Pretty cool shooting it at a target.I tried to be Seargent York but ended up looking more like Gomer Pyle.Now my whole family are hunters & gun rights advocates & such.Nearly every conversation around the holidays deals with Gun laws & such.Every year they all go up to the mountains & shoot deer & such.I tried it once....all I did was freeze my arse off,catch a cold & generally have a miserable time.I failed to see the fun in hunting a deer that looks way better prancing through the forest than stuffed & mounted on a wall.So while I recognize that a lot of people enjoy it,I personally won't do it unless I'm starving & I need to feed my family or something to that effect.
Also,is it just guns that should have laws? I can do more damage with a machete or sword or whatever else I can get my hands on if the reason I have it is to go out & maim or kill someone and let's face it,you aren't gonna do that if you know that the other person has something similar & you have a good to better chance of getting killed yourself.This is by no means me saying..."Hey!! Give everyone a gun so they'll leave each other alone." But usually it boils down to someone using a weapon of a kind against either someone who's defenseless or not suspecting an attack.....which translates to pure cowardice on the attacker's part.
I dunno,gun control,as an issue,has so many vague elements to it.In a perfect world we wouldn't need 'em or at least only the responsible people would have them......unfortunately we live in a less than perfect world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
An animal dying out of nothing more than sport is an entirely different thing. If marksmanship is your sport, then head down to a shooting range, or find yourself some tin cans.
The "sport" of hunting is actually a bi-product of a larger concern. Animal populations, like human, do indeed grow year by year due to reproduction (I think all of us here have heard of that). If there is no hunting of these animals, their populations become larger than the food source and leads to starvation. Hunting helps keep these numbers down. Each state governments here in the U.S. monitor the population and release hunting limits based on the current population. So it's not just Bubba and Earl going out and seeing what they can kill. It's a way of preventing the entire animal population from starving to death.
A food chain has predators, sure - but don't you have big cats for that sort of thing?
And its not a smooth food chain. Mass starvations occur. There was some distressing footage the yera before last of thousands of kangaroos bouncing into huge fences while trying to get to water in a drought. Many of them died, but the kangaroo is in no danger of extinction because of it. You don't need hunters when the system takes care of itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
[QUOTE]
The Framers recognized that self-government requires the People's access to bullets as well as ballots. The armed citizenry (militia) was expected to protect against not only foreign enemies, but also a potentially tyrannical federal government. In short, the right to bear arms was intended to ensure that our government remained in the hands of the People.
Akil Reed Amar and Alan Hirsch, For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights, (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1998).
Foreign enemies aren't a concern anymore: your government takes care of it for you.
As for a tyrannous government, you're outgunned, plain and simple: if no other country in the world can match the US military, what hope have citizens? Like I said, if you want to overthrow a tyrannous government, you'll need artillery, not semi-automatic or automatic weapons. And your government won't let you do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
A food chain has predators, sure - but don't you have big cats for that sort of thing?
No, not everywhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And its not a smooth food chain. Mass starvations occur. There was some distressing footage the yera before last of thousands of kangaroos bouncing into huge fences while trying to get to water in a drought. Many of them died, but the kangaroo is in no danger of extinction because of it. You don't need hunters when the system takes care of itself.
The thing you don't realize is that in a rural area, when starvation occurs the animals move in closer to human habitats. They begin to become a danger to people by running out in front of cars on country roads. The closer they get to human areas, the more dangers they pose to humans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Created a bit of road kill myself over the years...
Australia has licensed kangaroo cullers. Couldn't you do the same thing, rather than have everybody armed to the hilt in case you're overwhelmed by deer?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
We do require licenses to hunt. And if you're caught hunting without one, you're fined out of your ass for it. But, as I said earlier, it's important for a lot of families to be able to hunt and put food on the table. Having only a certain number of hunters would prevent many of them from being able to feed their families.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
We do require licenses to hunt. And if you're caught hunting without one, you're fined out of your ass for it. But, as I said earlier, it's important for a lot of families to be able to hunt and put food on the table. Having only a certain number of hunters would prevent many of them from being able to feed their families.
You're serious? People still hunt for essential food in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
As weird as it sounds, it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 44
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 44 |
The real issue, of course, is not whether a person needs to hunt, but whether they have the freedom to hunt if they want to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Demian:
The real issue, of course, is not whether a person needs to hunt, but whether they have the freedom to hunt if they want to.
Here we have a cultural gap. In the US, you have rights except what the government takes away from you. In common law countries, you have rights given to you by law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Demian:
The real issue, of course, is not whether a person needs to hunt, but whether they have the freedom to hunt if they want to.
And if they don't need to, they shouldn't want to.
Out of necessity (ie, food and/or population control- hopefully both, as in eating what you cull) is a far different matter to out of fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Demian:
The real issue, of course, is not whether a person needs to hunt, but whether they have the freedom to hunt if they want to.
And if they don't need to, they shouldn't want to.
Out of necessity (ie, food and/or population control- hopefully both, as in eating what you cull) is a far different matter to out of fun.
Damn straight, Danny. The sad fact is that the vast majority of U.S. hunters are NOT hunting out of "necessity". No, mostly it's just a bunch of fucking brain-dead good ol' boys who want to kill a living creature with their precious guns just for the thrill of it. "Sport", my ass. The only good thing about hunting is when the drunken Neanderthal's shoot each other by accident.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Sonhaven:
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
By the way, anyone who uses the argument of hunting for sport to justify owning guns is a tool.
What the difference between callously killing an animal for sport and eating a Big Mac with out giving a thought about where it came from?
In both instances an animal was killed for personal enjoyment.
Most people have no idea how much slaughterhouse animals suffer, that's very true. And yes, the end result of both scenarios is death. But while most meat-eaters live in a sort of denial wonderland in regard to the moral/ethical implications of their dietary choices (i.e. they just try not to think about what happened to their "dinner" before it ended up on their plates), "sport" hunters are just out to kill a living being for the fucking thrill of it. They sometimes like to paint it out to be some kind of "spiritual" experience (ala Ted Nugent--- numb, idiotic cunt that he is), but it really just comes down to the primitive/savage need of certain people to kill something with a weapon. From an overall mind-set perspective there is a WORLD of difference between your average meat-eater and a "sport" hunter. Shit, long before I became a vegan I would have NEVER even entertained the notion of killing an animal for "Sport", and I truly believe that the vast majority of meat-eaters out there feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
|
|
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2 |
Guns dont kill,people kill!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 31
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 577
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 577 |
Ah, a topic worthy of my posting. How precious. I am for gun control. In the words of Lao Tzu, "Weapons are tools of violence, any decent man despises them."
It's an issue that has become complicated due to the theory that we need protection. It's a republican/conservative sentiment that we should be paranoid, live in fear, and be ready for the worst. I think it goes back to Puritan beliefs where they feared God's Wrath and witches. Now,we must fear everyone. Paranoia builds upon paranoia. Somewhere along the lines, kids buy guns and kill their teachers and people rob liquor stores, killing the owners in the process.
My uncle leans on the conservative stance. He has had a gun with him ever sense he was in Vietnam. joined the police, the U.S Marshalls, then Secret Service. We debated the topic, and he said that in principle, he was for gun control, but as a realist, he was against it.
Now, let me offer you a statistic. 25,000 people in the U.S. are killed by guns every year. Might have gone up since 1999. That is more than every other country in the world combined. Why? Maybe it's because Americans are rash to judge things and act out. "The media says they are bad, so we must kill them all!" Or maybe it's because I can go to Walmart and buy a shotgun or a rifle for somewhere around 200 bucks. Hanguns are cheaper.
Then, if someone pisses me off, I shoot them.
Now, this hunting crap is kind of stupid too. There's no sportmanship in dressing up in camouflage, using a rifle with a scope, and shooting a big ole deer or bear. Use a bow and arrow and get up close, if you really want to challenge nature. And what's this about overpopulation? Killing deer because they are taking over the area? I do believe that humans have surpassed the capacity the planet can hold under decent living standards... why not thin that little species out a bit? I detect a strong hypocracy, my friends.
Guns are weapons used for destruction and death. There is nothing about them that merits public ownership. It just adds fuel to the fire. You have you views, and I have mine.
That being said, I acknowledge that if a weapon is banned, people flock to buy it, namely because they fear being weak and vulnerable. That is paranoia. It doesn't help. Paranoia is a weakness itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Before we throw out numbers, make sure that you don't go on the doctored books used by lobbyists. The numbers listed as annual totals of gun homicides in the US are often padded with the [substantial] number of gun suicides in the US. Such an inclusion would be fine and might even help the argument for gun control - if those who publish the padded figures would make known that they counted both homicides and suicides rather than rolling them both into 'people killing other people with guns'. Dishonest. Why do some people think America is going to hell? We've left our minds (and our votes) in the hands of lobbyists and the media. ![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
It's extremely difficult to die from a lack of sport.
quote:
Originally posted by Sonhaven:
So....hunting is dangerous therefore out law it....along with bungy-jumping, skydiving, or any other extreme sport you can think of.
What Sammitch meant was that you need to eat to live, but you don't need to murder to live. Hence, difficult to die from a lack of sport. Hunting being dangerous never came into it.
quote:
Originally posted by Sonhaven:
What the difference between callously killing an animal for sport and eating a Big Mac with out giving a thought about where it came from?
In both instances an animal was killed for personal enjoyment.
Who eats solely for personal enjoyment?
Human beings need to eat to live. An animal dying so that people can survive and the life cycle continue is one thing. It's the way nature's worked since just about the beginning of everything. Nobody takes pleasure in the killing of the animal, but it's necessary.
An animal dying out of nothing more than sport is an entirely different thing. If marksmanship is your sport, then head down to a shooting range, or find yourself some tin cans.
I've enjoyed your posts on this thread, Danny, but I just wanted to clear up what you said about it being "necessary" for people to kill animals for food. That actually isn't true at all--- we do NOT need to kill animals for food. Human beings can get MORE than adequete nutrition fom a completely plant-based diet. In fact, many leading nutritionists feel that a plant-based diet is superior to a diet containing animal flesh and it's by-products. (And it's no secret that a diet heavy in animal fat has been conclusively linked to heart disease and certain cancers.)
__________________________________________
* As far as the overpopulation/starvation of deer goes, that situation could be handled fairly easily by seperating the deer into two control groups: some of the deer could be sterilized and some could be allowed to continue breeding. Just attach a different colored "tag" on each deer from the two seperate groups and VOILA! A very organized, handy, and humane system for population control. They have already been using a similar system in Australia for Koalas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Since when was population control ever our responsibility? There are numerous instances of organisms that are extremely harmful to their ecosystems because they aren't native to that ecosystem - they were brought in by that most ingenious of species ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif) to control the populations of 'pests'. Hunting has been the livelihood of many individuals (even in the good ol' U S of A) for a very long time, and it makes little sense for either alarmist lobbyists, presumptuous pseudo-scientists, or just plain assholes (not implying any of you are any of those of course) to keep them from acquiring the tools they need to get their work done. I don't hunt, chances are none of you hunt. When it comes to the hunting issue, we're outsiders. Unless we find ourselves in a public office of some sort, we shouldn't have the inclination to alter the livelihood of others when our own perspective is incomplete. So if we're gonna debate the gun-control issue, let's keep it to relevant points like assault weapons or background checks, okay?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 44
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 44 |
Matt, the dumbest fucks I know are people who condemn hunting but who buy KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) or battery farm eggs, or meat from pigs who are kept in "sow crates", or who eat veal and pate de foie gras.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Demian:
Matt, the dumbest fucks I know are people who condemn hunting but who buy KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) or battery farm eggs, or meat from pigs who are kept in "sow crates", or who eat veal and pate de foie gras.
Yes, people who eat meat ARE on somewhat shaky ground when they condemn hunting while continuing to eat factory-farmed animals. Yet that still doesn't change the fact that "sport" hunting is a vile practice. Many meat-eaters (and i've talked to a shitload of them at countless animal rights events/gatherings, believe me) at least feel guilt about ingesting animals, but a "sport" hunter is without an ounce of remorse or shame for their disgraceful conduct. Your average meat-eater will at least listen to what you have to say about alternative dietary choices and the basic plight of "food" animals, but you just have 0 chance at ever hoping to reach the kind of fuck-Wad who finds it enjoyable to go out into the woods and blow some living creatures brains out--- not because they NEED food due to extreme poverty, etc--- but just for the fun of it. It's been my experience (both as a former meat-eater AND a vegan/part-time animal rights activist) that most people don't eat meat out of crueltry but instead out of habit. Almost every single culture has embraced meat-eating since the very beginning, and it is just absolutely ingrained all the way down the line. Who among us doesn't associate certain foods with family, comfort, and happiness? Hell, every one of us probably have at least a dozen recipes that make us fondly remember a past family gathering or event. Eating is a very social thing, and the simple truth is that most people DO eat meat--- great big shit-loads of meat and animal by-products (milk, cheese, butter, etc, etc, etc). Foods containing animals and their by-products is what the average person has always known and been around, so that is only natural. And another very important thing to remember, Doc, is that the vast majority of meat-eaters out there have no idea just how much their "food" suffered before winding up on their plate. Most people don't know the level of suffering that factory-farmed animals endure before finally being slaughtered.(Or even the countless horrors they experience while AT the slaughterhouse, for that matter.) Like I was already saying, I don't believe for a second that most meat-eaters are cruel-natured monsters who don't give a shit about what these animals go through. No, most of these people think that "food animals" live in humane conditions until they are slaughtered for human consumption. They do not know the truth, and why should they? On every jug of milk we see cartoons of smiling cows, on every container of sausage we see happy, dancing pigs. How many people have ever been to a real factory farm or slaughterhouse? How many people--- other than vegans and activists--- really know the gory details about what goes on in these places? Most meat-eaters eat animals out of custom and habit, not malice or cruelty. "Sport" hunters on the other hand are just callous, cruel assholes who kill for recreation without a shred of conscience. Give me your average "in the dark" (willfully OR otherwise) meat-eater over a vicious, fuck-faced "sport" hunter any day...
_________________________________________
* Sorry for all the preachin', gang, but I would like to finish up by posting some links to some very interesting sites about veganism/animal rights. Here goes:
www.veganoutreach.com (This site gives a very cool over-all answer to the question "Why Vegan"?)
www.peta.org (This link takes you to the PETA site. Now, I know these guys can be a little nutsy and extreme sometimes, but as the largest animal rights advocate group on the planet they also accomplish great things on a daily basis--- take a look around this site if you get a chance.)
www.GOVEG.com (Go here to receive a FREE vegetarian starter kit--- it's a great, informative little booklet--- and since it's free you have nothing to lose by ordering one so "hop" to it, gang! ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) )
www.dairysucks.com
www.milksucks.com (Sorry, I couldn't remember which was the right name for this site. Check it out, though--- it contains a great deal of info on the myth of the "happy cow".)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
One more thing and then I promise to shut up for the night. If you guys want to read THE fucking book on Animal Rights/veganism please go to your local library and check out a copy of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation". I'm dead serious, this book will fucking flat-out blow you away, gang. Whether you choose to go vegan or not, I guarantee you'll never look at "food animals" in quite the same way ever again after reading this book. This bad boy covers EVERY possible angle connected to animal rights/veganism (ethics, environmental issues, historical over-views and examinations of meat-eating throughout the ages, accounts of standard factory-farm and slaughterhouse practices, etc., etc., etc.,). Man, I just can't stress enough how compelling and important this book is, so please give it a shot the next time you're looking for something good to read, y'all. >
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I've read it. It's got angles, all right. And they're most definitely connected to the issue - albeit only one side of it. The case for vegans is one that can only convince individuals; you're never going to be able to sway a multitude. I for one was disappointed by a slight lack of objectivity - once again, someone on the outside decides they know better than folks who have been doing something for a long time - and in this case, a very long time. I'm not saying your argument isn't valid, Matt, I'm just saying its implications are not universally applicable and the core elements of the argument are not set forth in an objective way that takes the opposition into account. It's very easy to knock something you've distanced yourself from. It becomes a little harder sometimes once you start to see where folks are coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Sorry, man. I like animals and all, but those PETA people scare me. ![[gulp!]](gulp.gif) Saying we should care more for animals is fine, but putting animal life on a level with human life [which is precisely what many of these activists are doing] has been the source of many unhappy philosophical debates going back past the Greeks. Fact is, an argument like that does more damage to society than can be compensated for by projected positive returns. If you want to build a credible base of information [which I sense you are trying very hard to do], steer clear of the fringe. There are plenty of good reasons people become vegans other than worn-out and indefensible philosophical arguments about the hierarchy of nature.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Further, I think we're getting a bit off-topic here. Veganism is not what we're here to debate. Like I said, hunting and hunting weapons shouldn't be a focal point of this debate (especially since statistics show that only a small minority of gun crimes are committed using them).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
So after you guys get guns banned are you gonna go after all those evil fishermen roaming around. They're obviously a bunch of sick bastards who delight in sticking sharp metal hooks in poor animals mouths & then dragging them around in the water by their lips. Then after the vile fishermen tire of torturing these poor defensless critters they just let them suffacate. Oh, the horror.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I've read it. It's got angles, all right. And they're most definitely connected to the issue - albeit only one side of it. The case for vegans is one that can only convince individuals; you're never going to be able to sway a multitude. I for one was disappointed by a slight lack of objectivity - once again, someone on the outside decides they know better than folks who have been doing something for a long time - and in this case, a very long time. I'm not saying your argument isn't valid, Matt, I'm just saying its implications are not universally applicable and the core elements of the argument are not set forth in an objective way that takes the opposition into account. It's very easy to knock something you've distanced yourself from. It becomes a little harder sometimes once you start to see where folks are coming from.
There is no such thing as genuine objectivity, Cap'n. Not sure how long it's been since you read it, but Singer's book was written as an argument FOR veganism. That's exactly where the book was coming from. Included in this argument was a massive amount of research--- the guy covered all the bases. Singer also debated all the popular arguments AGAINST veganism/animal rights that had been bandied about up to that point and included that in his book as well. Objectivity wasn't a problem with this book at all, really. Maybe you should go back and have another read-through, because it sounds to me like you only have a very vague recollection of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
Sorry, man. I like animals and all, but those PETA people scare me. Saying we should care more for animals is fine, but putting animal life on a level with human life [which is precisely what many of these activists are doing] has been the source of many unhappy philosophical debates going back past the Greeks. Fact is, an argument like that does more damage to society than can be compensated for by projected positive returns. If you want to build a credible base of information [which I sense you are trying very hard to do], steer clear of the fringe. There are plenty of good reasons people become vegans other than worn-out and indefensible philosophical arguments about the hierarchy of nature.
I already freely admitted that PETA can be a tad extreme and over the top in trying to get their message across(they are ALWAYS non-violent, however, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is woefully ill-informed). But they certainly have plenty of credibile information AND results--- this group has been making a huge difference and leading ALL animal rights advocacy groups since you and i were in short-pants, Cap. And a more than casual perusal of their web-site would also show you that they make SEVERAL excellent arguments for veganism/animal rights--- ranging from simply purely ethical arguments all the way up to the scientifically-researched environmental concerns that meat-eating raises (statistics that are as sickening as they are staggering). Don't know exactly what you meant by that whole "indefensible philosophical arguments about the hierarchy of nature", Cap. Please elaborate if you don't mind.
_________________________
* While I'm sure there are some vegans out there who value the life of an animal more than they do the life of a human, I really don't see how that has any bearing on animal rights activism as a whole. And why should anyone even bother to turn it into some kind of a pissing contest between humans and animals, anyway? It is shockingly simple for both humans AND animals to live satisfactory lives free of unecessary suffering and death without ever having to "choose" between one species or the other.
__________________________________________
* I already mentioned a link earlier to an outfit that is not affiliated with PETA--- go check that site out if you prefer, folks. It has some great info and it does a very effective job of answering the question "Why vegan"?
www.veganoutreach.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I've read it. It's got angles, all right. And they're most [i] I'm not saying your argument isn't valid, Matt, I'm just saying its implications are not universally applicable and the core elements of the argument are not set forth in an objective way that takes the opposition into account. It's very easy to knock something you've distanced yourself from. It becomes a little harder sometimes once you start to see where folks are coming from.
Didn't you read my earlier posts? I know where your average meat-eater is coming from. I have little difficulty whatsoever relating to the average meat-eater, Cap. Like I mentioned earlier, I have only been a vegan for about 2 years now. I spent the first 30 years of my life eating animals and animal by-products, so I definitely find it easy to take the "opposition into account". And that's one of the things I ALWAYS try to stress when i'm talking to people about veganism/animal rights. I'm just a regular joe--- i'm not some hippie radical type. I'm not a vegan just because i love cuddly wuddly lil' critters. I was blind-sided by pure REASON, not emotion. I'm just a regular guy who became a vegan after reading a massive amount of info on the subject from a variety of sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
Further, I think we're getting a bit off-topic here. Veganism is not what we're here to debate. Like I said, hunting and hunting weapons shouldn't be a focal point of this debate (especially since statistics show that only a small minority of gun crimes are committed using them).
Yeah, i did get off-topic, that's true. And for what it's worth, I DON'T advocate gun control at all (with the possible exception of automatic weapons). Sure, people are going to have a shitload of gun accidents each year that result in death, that's just a given. People can be very stupid and careless. But it's not the government's job to regulate stupidity or carelessness. Uncle Sam shouldn't have the right to take away EVERYONE'S lawfully registered guns just because some people can't own and operate said weapons properly and safely. As much as i hate to read about cases where some child gets ahold of their parent's gun and injures or kills themself, across the board gun control is just unamerican. (Keeping guns out of the hands of children is ultimately the PARENT'S responsibility, not the federal government's.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
So after you guys get guns banned are you gonna go after all those evil fishermen roaming around. They're obviously a bunch of sick bastards who delight in sticking sharp metal hooks in poor animals mouths & then dragging them around in the water by their lips. Then after the vile fishermen tire of torturing these poor defensless critters they just let them suffacate. Oh, the horror.
I never said anything about banning guns, Wingnutt. In fact, i'm against gun control (with the exception of automatic assault rifles, as i mentioned a minute ago). All i said in my earlier posts was that i despised so-called "sport" hunters.
_____
* Are you one of those flat-earth hold-outs who still believe that fish don't feel pain? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Automatic assault weapons are for wusses who don't know how to handle a knife properly. ![[nyah hah]](images/icons/tongue.gif) I could give that book another once-over but I don't think it'd really change my mind. Still, I'll be careful not to offend any vegans that might be lurking out there...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
So after you guys get guns banned are you gonna go after all those evil fishermen roaming around. They're obviously a bunch of sick bastards who delight in sticking sharp metal hooks in poor animals mouths & then dragging them around in the water by their lips. Then after the vile fishermen tire of torturing these poor defensless critters they just let them suffacate. Oh, the horror.
I'm not going to shoot the next guy who fumbling with the lock on the back door - whether it be a burglar, my dad or one of my drunk friends - with a fishing line, though.
|
|
|
|
|
