------- Forwarded message follows -------
···
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@yahoo.com>
Date sent: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:55:51 -0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Frankly off-topic: Bill, put down the ammo box....
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "billkennedy3" <billkennedy3@y...>
wrote:
Woah. I should probably just let this one die, but the logic here
is
so flawed that I feel compelled to throw my 2 cents on the fire.
I have only one question for you: "where do you think the meat on
supermarket shelves comes from?" Killing a deer with a high
powered rifle is certainly more humane than then the way cows are
slaughtered.
Not that I think that the treatment of the cows is particularly
humane, but at least they're killed instantly, and are too stupid to
know what's happening to them. Hunted deer are first terrorized,
then shot. In most cases the deer does not die instantly; often it
takes several minutes to die. In any case, even if the cows were
interrogated and tortured to death by the Gestapo, what bearing does
that have on the way deer are killed? Furthermore, if you DID want
to make a correlation of some kind (illogical as that would be, and
we know how you hate illogic), it might be pointed out that the
cruelty of killing a cow at least is balanced out by the benefit
derived (the cow will feed several people), whereas the only benefit
derived from the cruelty of hunting and killing a deer will be to
give the hunter an erection.
When you're eating a hamburger, do you think that just
because YOU didn't actually kill the cow, that one didn't die?
People have been hunting for thousands of years, and there is
certainly nothing immoral about it, as you're trying to suggest.
You totally misconstrue my stance and misrepresent the situation:
1. I don't object to killing animals for food. Ideally, it should be
done in as humane a manner as possible; the fact that it isn't done
as humanely as possible bothers me, but not enough for me to eat
salad for the rest of my life.
2. What I asked Judge Bill was, where was the ENJOYMENT in deer
hunting? Obviously I find it personally abhorrent, because I loathe
the idea of KILLING FOR AMUSEMENT. Yes, I know that mankind has been
hunting for thousands of years. FOR FOOD. It's only recently in
human history that hunting for pleasure has become the pastime of
anybody other than kings and sultans. Actually, it's probably a good
thing that slaughter-loving gun-toting redneck goober hunters are in
the minority in this country, otherwise there'd be nothing left
alive that was larger than an amoeba.
3. And if you justify hunting of an animal that;s going to be
consumed for food, do you condemn the killing of animals for sport?
Or do you endorse the people who grab pellet guns and knock hawks
and eagles out of the sky, for instance?
Are you against fishing too? Or is your problem with hunting
because deers are "cuter"?
I reiterate that the question I asked was, where was the enjoyment
in hunting? Obviously I'm "against" it, but I do realize that it's
perfectly legal and that people have the right to do it if they
want. Like smoking cigars, it's something that I can't imagine
myself doing, and I'm truly puzzled that anyone finds the activity
enjoyable.
As far as fishing goes, I don't really understand the thrill of it,
either. I suspect it's a way for guys to get out into the country
and hang out by a mountain river or whatever, when they would be
happy just to take a chair along and watch the river go by, but to
admit that to one's buddies would seem "unmanly", so you have to
be "doing something" rather than just hanging out and enjoying the
scenery.
I object to killing "ugly" animals for sport as well. Your question
is patronizing at best. However, for what it's worth, the next time
I see a deer in the forest, I'd rather it was bounding up a hillside
than tied to the hood of a pickup truck.
And while you may consider hunting "boring", I'm sure there are
activities that you partake in that others might find equally
uninteresting (such as walking around in the mountains). How
would you feel if somebody suggested that you not be allowed to do
something that you enjoy just because THEY can find no redeeming
qualities to it?
1. I never suggested that anyone should not be allowed to hunt.
2. I don't think that I DID say hunting was "boring", but I'm not
going to reread my post to check, because its essentially boring
character is not why I'm puzzled that people do it. People have a
LOT of boring hobbies and voluntarily do a LOT of boring things.
That's their problem, not mine.
I can't believe that you'd call someone else one-sided.
I also want to add that I don't hunt, and don't own any guns. But
I feel very strongly that everyone should have the right to do both.
I agree. I only object to twisting of the wording of the Second
Amendment to justify gun ownership. I think owning a gun is stupid
and pointless, and dangerous for the people who live in the
immediate vicinity of the gun owner. But we do have the freedom to
do many stupid, pointless, and dangerous things, including those
that are classified as "sport".
also feel that a VP forum should focus on VP, so I'll stop adding
fuel to the fire now. =)
So you feel that way only right now, AFTER you've said your piece? A
bit hypocritical, isn't it, to say that "There's too much non-VP
talk on this board" immediate after posting several paragraphs of
non-VP talk?