WHY I QUIT HUNTING
pearl
Published by cyrano2 at 8:30 pm under Animal Liberation, Cruel Idiots,
Empathy Deficient, Exploitation, Moral Cowardice, Moral Rot, Speciesism
BY WAY OF PREFACE TO A PERSONAL STORY
Man is a creature of astonishing contradictions and enormous moral range.
The same species that produces fools, knaves, cowards, a massive number
of mediocrities, and assorted monsters of depravity, also gives us geniuses,
saints, and heroes of exemplary virtue. The spread of behavior is so vast as
to be almost incomprehensible. But maybe the most interesting thing about
humans is their capacity to travel from one point of the moral spectrum to
another, from evil to good, and from good to indifference and often tacit
acceptance of evil.
Modern-day hunters and people who callously use animals for vanity and
or "recreation" (remember Michael Vick) fall into an especially troublesome
category. In the vast majority of cases the person in question is simply a
victim of unexamined assumptions and cultural traditions, and a pitiful lack
of empathetic imagination, a total failure of compassion. Such individuals
commit disgusting acts, but the baffling thing about the horrors of this
world, what some call the sheer "banality of evil", is that committing an evil
act does not per se signify the person is utterly evil. People are often not
only contradictory in their behavior, they also change their ways and undergo
redemption. I'm not a conventionally religious person, at all, but the idea of
redemption - in a secular, not Catholic form - I find powerful and
touching in the extreme. For by showing that humans are indeed capable of
understanding their wrongful deeds, that, despite all the muck that surrounds
us, decency manages to survive somehow, and that in consequence they
indeed aspire to live in peace with their conscience, because, if nothing else
bad actions do in fact bother them, deny them rest, redemption underscores
the possibility of a better world grounded in real peace and justice for
everyone, none the least for the most exploited and brutalized creatures on
this earth, the animals.
The personal document I reproduce below has special significance for me
because it is about redemption, a hunter's redemption. Although I have
always been familiar with weapons of various types, I never took to the
"pleasures" of shooting animals, "live targets." I never could see the "sport"
in it at all. And never will. Thus the hunter's mind, a person who sees
absolutely nothing wrong in killing a beautiful, innocent, living breathing
creature for his own personal pleasure, or some other frivolous reason or
pretext (and I should tell you that after more than three decades in the
animal defense movement I've heard just about all the pro-hunting arguments
ever crafted by this fraternity) remains a baffling mystery. I was therefore
immensely excited when, back in 1986, when I served as editor at large for
The Animals' Agenda, the first independent US animal rights publication,
I got this unsolicited testimony from Dallas Gragg, a former hunter.
Dallas's words are effortlessly eloquent and they remain true to this day.
The strong personal conscience and integrity that illuminated his journey
of moral self-discovery was there all along, only momentarily suppressed
by the pressures of conventionality and cultural norms. I am therefore
confident you'll find his testimony as moving as when I first read it more
than 20 years ago. The truths he speaks about can never be extinguished.
For they define what the transformation potential of human beings is all
about. I am happy to be able to share Dallas's story with our Cyrano
audience. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for coming forward.
-Patrice Greanville, The Greanville Journal
=============================================
WHY I QUIT HUNTING
BY ROY DALLAS GRAGG |
[Original dateline: Animals' Agenda, November 1986]*
I WAS BORN in the mountains of North Carolina near Grandfather Mountain
and Mt. Mitchell. Hunting, killing and butchering animals was a way of life for
the mountain people. I killed my first hog at age eight. I had expected the
animal to fall as if by magic when I squeezed the trigger of my grandfather's old
.22 caliber rifle. I was both surprised and alarmed when the animal screamed
with pain and agony. "More carefully," my uncle said, "You have to hit him in
the head." When the rifle cracked the second time, the animal fell dead.
I couldn't sleep that night - I could still hear the animal's screams. The adults
laughed the next day when I told them it just didn't seem right to shoot an
animal when he was locked helplessly in a pen.
I dreaded October each year-that was the month when the hogs and steers were
killed and butchered. Early in the morning barrels of water were heated over
roaring fires to scald the animals so that their hair could be scraped off. I got
a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when a butcher knife slashed the hog's
throat and the blood ran across the ground as the pitiful animal convulsed and
kicked. The air smelled of death, especially when the hogs were gutted. I
noticed that the horse, a huge Clydesdale mare named Bell, would sniff the air,
and with big eyes run away. She too smelled the death. I always stayed outside
whenever possible because the stench of lard being boiled on the woodstove
was unbearable.
However, it was always my job to turn the handle of the hand-operated sausage
machine. Spring brought another dreaded time, when the man came to castrate
the pigs and dehorn the cattle. I would hold my ears to shut out the sound of
their agonized screams. "Don't be a sissy-you'll get used to it," I was told, but
I never did.
Sundays usually brought another unpleasant task: catching a chicken and
"wringing" its neck. The sight of the unfortunate creatures' bodies jumping
high in the air with a broken neck is still fresh in my mind, even though it was
over thirty years ago.
To make matters worse, the butchered birds and animals had often been pets.
I had a pet chicken named Red. I trained Red, a big red hen, to sit patiently on
a fence post or other object for hours until I set her down. I also had a pet
turkey named Fred. As is the fate of most turkeys, Fred ended up on the
Thanksgiving table. The crowd roared with laughter when I said, "I'm not
thankful. Fred was my friend and I'm not going to eat him." My cousins
taunted me until I finally ate a small piece of breast, but I felt like a cannibal.
I rather enjoyed hunting because I didn't have to butcher the birds and animals.
By the time I was fourteen I was a "crack shot". I never missed. Squirrel
hunting was my favorite because the elusive gray squirrels were hard to hit.
One day I grazed a big gray squirrel and he fell right in front of my dog Rex.
The squirrel was putting up a furious battle against the dog who was many
times its size. I sat down and thought for awhile. I couldn't help but admire
the little animal. He had wanted to live!
The mountain people often shot the red squirrels or "boomers" for shooting
practice. The red squirrels were not good to eat so they were thrown away.
But that didn't sit right with me either. I doubted that God made his boomers
just to shoot at.
One morning, as I sat on top of a steep hill waiting for the sun to come up and
the game to start moving about, I noticed many small oak trees on the hill.
Acorns are heavy, especially this variety. They were as big as chestnuts and
probably weighed several ounces. I hadn't seen this particular variety before.
I strolled down the hill and crossed a small valley to another hill and found the
parent tree, a huge oak about four feet in diameter. I was puzzled. How did the
acorns travel across a valley to another hill? The wind didn't blow them, that
was for sure, and floodwaters don't run uphill. I saw something move out of
the corner of my eye. It was a gray squirrel leaping from a huge oak heading
across the valley. I dropped the squirrel with a single shot. Imagine my surprise
when I picked up the squirrel and he had one of those huge acorns lodged in
his mouth! I had been shooting the planters of the forests! On the way home
I said to myself, "So that's why God made squirrels."
A few years later, I joined the army and became qualified as an expert rifleman.
"I have never seen anyone shoot like that," I overheard the sergeant tell the
lieutenant.
"He dropped 16 men (targets) in less than 20 seconds!" Later the lieutenant
said to me "You could do that in Vietnam, too. The slant-eyes are just bigger
game." But I didn't make it to Vietnam. An ulcer got me a medical discharge
and I returned home to the mountains.
I still hunted some but I thought about the squirrels. If they were nature's
planters, what were the other animals' jobs? Later I noticed holly bushes in
sheltered mountain valleys, over 20 miles from their natural growing range.
It was quite obvious that birds had carried the seeds this great distance.
By the time I was thirty I had quit hunting entirely and began studying the birds
and animals. I read books on ecology and the environment. And I returned to
the forests - this time with a camera instead of a gun. I watched the squirrels
carefully. They would always follow the same path through the trees, swinging
like trapeze artists. Occasionally I would see a flying squirrel gliding silently
through the trees or a ruffled grouse blasting away like a rocket.
I marked the spots where the nuts carried by squirrels fell and returned in the
spring to find small trees growing in those areas. I also observed the "worthless"
red squirrels burying nuts. It occurred to me that nut-bearing trees, oaks,
hickories, walnuts, chestnuts and many, many others all depended on the little
animals to transport their seed throughout the forests.
It should be obvious to any thinking person that nature is a powerful but delicate
force. Each living thing on the planet is striving for survival in one way or another,
and striving to keep its kind from becoming extinct. Various species of plants,
birds and animals have survived earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods
and many other kinds of natural catastrophes only to fall victim to uncaring humans.
Hunters are directly responsible - to name a few - for the extinction of the
passenger pigeon as well as many kinds of island-dwelling birds. The buffalo
very nearly became extinct after hunters [retained by commercial interests] went
after them largely to wipe out the Indians' [main] food supply. Starve'em to
submission.
This strategy left more than 50 million of the great creatures on the plains to
decay in the sun. Hunters have brought the mountain lion, the grizzly bear, the
whooping crane, and even the symbol of our nation, the bald eagle, to the
brink of extinction.
I began studying hunters from "the other side of the fence:' When working with
hunters I would ask their opinions of hunting. One hunter's reply was, "God
made animals for me to eat - what else are they good for?" Another said,
"It makes me forget my troubles to hunt and fish." I thought long and hard about
his statement. Humans vent their stress and their frustrations from daily life on
innocent wildlife. Hunting is a one-sided game with only one winner - human
beings. This is why hunters refer to birds and animals as "game". When the
hunter has hunted down and killed an animal, he has "won" the game. More often
than not, the creature is killed for pleasure instead of for food. A certain sadistic
pleasure is derived by killing another creature. When a human kills an animal the
act fuels his ego: he has mastered the creature by taking its life.
Why else would a trophy hunter spend thousands of dollars, hike through steaming
snake- and insect-infested swamps or climb steep cliffs to kill a magnificent member
of another species? Why else would he cut off the head of his victim and leave the
body to rot? Why else would he take the head to a taxidermist and mount it over his
fireplace? He has dominated and killed the "beast", and therefore hangs its head up
for all the world to see that he is the mighty and fearless hunter. It is nothing but fuel
for the insecure ego of small men.
The hunter, with the scent of death in his nostrils, has little respect for his neighbor
who enjoys seeing the creatures on his property alive. "No hunting" and "No
trespassing" signs are torn down or shot full of holes. A hunting license is a permit
to kill indiscriminately. Our government sells out our wildlife for the price of a
hunting license. Soon after becoming an anti-hunting advocate, I found my tame
mallard ducks shot and floating on their pond. They too had enjoyed living and I
enjoyed them. But some pervert found pleasure in their death. Once I observed
hunters exterminating a covey of Bob White quail. Their cheerful calls can no
longer be heard around the small mountain community where I grew up as a child.
TRADITION is perhaps the worst enemy of the animals: even our holidays call
for the killing of birds and animals. These barbaric traditions, including hunting,
rodeos and other cruel sports, are taught to children and thus passed down from
generation to generation. Only a little more than a century ago blacks were
considered to be animals and were treated as such. Similarly. during the second
World War, Jews were considered to be subhuman by the Nazis, or perhaps even
subanimal, and were killed by the millions.
Even today we abuse our fellow humans through boxing, wrestling and other cruel
sports. How can the perpetrators of cruelty among us be expected to respect
animals when they do not even respect humans? Before we can understand animal
abuse we must understand ourselves. Humanity lives not by reality but by habits -
often anchored in selfishness and staggering ignorance. It is this aspect of human
nature we must work against.
If my story can, in some small way, influence the traditional way of thinking and
the ignorant beliefs about our fellow creatures, I would be greatly pleased. This
story is to aid our fellow creatures who have long suffered at the hands of
mankind. May they someday live in peace, without suffering and fear.
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=684
Mr. Smartypants
> pearl wrote:
> > WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>
> The only hunting you ever engaged in was for "johns". You never stopped
> - you're still a whore.
What a *brilliant* rebuttal, Boobs!
Why don't you go for your Ph.D now?
Rupert
> pearl wrote:
> > WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>
Yes, Ball, we knew that. Thank you.
Now, your acaedmic credentials remain unverified. I can't verify your
undergraduate degree because I'm not a prospective employer.
Check this out.
My testamur:
http://rupertmccallum.com/ru_degree.TIF
My Honours thesis:
http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis4.pdf
The current draft of my Ph.D. thesis:
http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis7.pdf
My publication (I am one of five co-authors; you will need to download
Ghostscript to read it):
ftp://ftp.esi.ac.at/pub/Preprints/esi1913.ps
See? Easy enough to do. Wouldn't it be fun to make me look like an
idiot?
"Axiomatizable" is not a real word because you couldn't find it in
online Merriam-Webster? "Disanalogy" is not a real word even though
you couldn't be bothered typing it into Google? Are you *sure*, Ball?
I'm not saying my doubts are all that strong; I'm just saying I'd like
to be absolutely sure.
We'd like to see the degrees, please. And the thesis if you wrote one,
and references to any publications you have.
Rupert
an inspiration for how to change the subject away from the topic of
his inadequacies. Telemarketing. That was a good one. So he wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 1:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>
> Yes, rupie, you fatuous cunt - we know that.
Okay, Ball, so let's explore where you're coming from here. This ought
to be amusing.
You appear to be maintaining that I am a telemarketer. Is this your
contention?
What do you do for a living, by the way? You've never told us.
Rupert
academic credentials are
currently unverified and who declines to tell us what he does for a
living, wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 11:44 pm, Jonathan Ball <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> had
> > an inspiration for how to change the subject away from the topic of
> > his inadequacies. Telemarketing. That was a good one. So he wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 1:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> WHY I QUIT HUNTING
> >>> I'm a sad, pathetic telemarketer who loves nothing more than to bother people.
> >> Yes, rupie, you fatuous cunt - we know that.
>
>
> Fuck off, twat.
Poetry.
Mr.Smartypants
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 11:44 pm, Jonathan Ball <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> had
> > an inspiration for how to change the subject away from the topic of
> > his inadequacies. Telemarketing. That was a good one. So he wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 1:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> WHY I QUIT HUNTING
> >>> I'm a sad, pathetic telemarketer who loves nothing more than to bother people.
> >> Yes, rupie, you fatuous cunt - we know that.
>
>
> Fuck off, twat.
I'm getting a vibe that you're scared to present your academic
credentials, Boobs.
Could it be you don't actually have any?
dh
>WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>Published by cyrano2 at 8:30 pm under Animal Liberation, Cruel Idiots,
>Empathy Deficient, Exploitation, Moral Cowardice, Moral Rot, Speciesism
>
>BY WAY OF PREFACE TO A PERSONAL STORY
>Man is a creature of astonishing contradictions and enormous moral range.
. . .
>by showing that humans are indeed capable of
>understanding their wrongful deeds, that, despite all the muck that surrounds
>us, decency manages to survive somehow, and that in consequence they
>indeed aspire to live in peace with their conscience, because, if nothing else
>bad actions do in fact bother them, deny them rest, redemption underscores
>the possibility of a better world grounded in real peace and justice for
>everyone, none the least for the most exploited and brutalized creatures on
>this earth, the animals.
Human hunting involves less cruelty, fear and suffering than
non-human predation. It also involves less than disease and
starvation, and is not as hard on baby animals. Advocates of
the gross misnomer "animal rights" would rather see more
suffering caused by non-human predators than see humans
diliberately control wildlife populations through hunting. Human
hunters don't live in the area with their prey, causing suffering
from fear night and day, at all times of the year. They also don't
chase their prey to exhaustion and then rip them apart, etc,
as non-human predators do. Of course humans cause much
less suffering to young and baby animals, since they usually
don't even hunt during the time of year their prey are giving
birth. In contrast to that non-human predators do hunt during
the time of year their prey are giving birth, and they hunt the
newborns specifically. Why do misnomer advocates want to
promote so much more brutilization and suffering? Or if they
don't litteraly *want* to, why don't they care anything about it?
pearl
Unsupported claims and criticism by a supporter of cockfighting.
It's called "survival of the fittest". A fleeing and/or fighting chance..
'When hunting deer, all [wolf] pack members frequently participate in
locating and chasing down the prey. If the pack starts to fall behind in
a chase, it will usually give up. Wolves cannot afford to expend
precious energy in fruitless skirmishes. If the chosen prey is injured,
weakened, old or very young and separated from the protection of the
adults, however, the wolves often do catch up with it and attack. But
even prey vulnerability does not guarantee dinner. The odds are rarely
in favor of the wolf. For example, fewer than one out of ten attempts to
kill a moose actually ends in success for the wolf. In fact, larger prey
animals such as moose, caribou and elk do not always run when they
encounter a pack of wolves. Wolves are frequently killed or severely
injured by these animals; even a deer can break a wolf's back with its
sharp hooves. Biologists who have done studies on dead wolves found
in the wild report that almost 100 percent show some sort of old injury
such as a fractured skull, leg or shoulder.
...'
http://www.kidsplanet.org/tt/wolf/reading/5hunting.PDF
"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal," wrote
John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with jagged and
pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to
gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them."
..
In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
"Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are provided
with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and devour their prey.
Man possesses no such instruments of destruction and is less well
qualified for hunting than is a horse or a buffalo. When a man goes
hunting, he must take a dog along to find the game for him, and must
carry a gun with which to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature
has not equipped him for hunting."
....'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html
'Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary
..
Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the
world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk.(2,3)
Less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts, yet hunting is permitted
in many wildlife refuges, national forests, state parks, and on other public
lands.(4) Forty percent of hunters slaughter and maim millions of animals
on public land every year, and by some estimates, poachers kill just as
many animals illegally.(5,6)
Pain and Suffering
Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured
but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance
estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are
wounded but not killed.(7) A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed
deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with "traditional
archery equipment," 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8)
Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot
again; 10 percent manage to escape, but "starvation is a likely fate" for
them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish, and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million
wounded ducks go "unretrieved" every year.(10) A British study of
deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who'd been killed by
hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some
wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(11)
Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families.
For animals like wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family
units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted
animals suffer - caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and
other commotion that hunters create - also severely compromises their
normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy
that they need in order to survive the winter.
Blood-Thirsty and Profit-Driven
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies
implement programs - often called "wildlife management" or
"conservation" programs - that are designed to boost the number of
"game" species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of
animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from
the sale of hunting licenses.
Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct
$100,000 a year toward "reduced predator impact," which involved
trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving
hunters more birds to kill.(12) The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up
with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (i.e., decimating
large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest in order to "produce
habitat needed by ruffed grouse."(13)
In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the
number of moose for hunters by "controlling" the wolf and bear
populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of
miles away from their homes; two were shot by hunters within two
weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their
homes.(14) Wolves have been slaughtered in order to "let the moose
population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters."(15)
In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population
backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly and photos of
suffering wolves were seen by an outraged public.(16)
Nature Takes Care of Its Own
The delicate balance of ecosystems ensures their own survival - if they
are left unaltered. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing
only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill any animal
whom they would like to hang over the fireplace - including large, healthy
animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Elephant poaching
is believed to have increased the number of tuskless animals in Africa, and
in Canada, hunting has caused bighorn sheep's horn size to fall by 25
percent in the last 40 years; Nature magazine reports that "the effect on
the populations' genetics is probably deeper."(17)
Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural
processes work to stabilize the group. Starvation and disease can be tragic,
but they are nature's ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive
and maintain the strength level of the rest of their herd or group. Shooting
an animal because he or she might starve or become sick is arbitrary and
destructive.
"Sport" hunting not only jeopardizes nature's balance, it also exacerbates
other problems. For example, the transfer of captive-bred deer and elk
between states for the purpose of hunting is believed to have contributed
to the epidemic spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD). As a result, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has given state wildlife agencies
millions of dollars to "manage" deer and elk populations.(18) The fatal
neurological illness that affects these animals has been likened to mad cow
disease, and while the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention claim that CWD has no relationship to any similar diseases
that affect humans or farmed animals, the slaughter of deer and elk
continues.(19,20)
Another problem with hunting involves the introduction of exotic "game"
animals who, if they're able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to native
wildlife and established ecosystems. After a group of nonnative wild
boars escaped from a private ranch and moved into the forests of
Cambria County, Pa., the state of Pennsylvania drafted a bill prohibiting
the importation of all exotic species of animals.(21)
Canned Cruelty
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are
often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up
as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill
native and exotic species in "canned hunts." These animals may be native
to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals
who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses.
They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with
a "trophy."
Canned hunts are becoming big business - there are an estimated 1,000
game preserves in the U.S.(22) Ted Turner, who owns more land than
any other landowner in the country, operates 20 ranches, where hunters
pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and
turkeys.(23)
Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and
are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to,
which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of
these ranches operate on a "no kill, no pay" policy, so it is in owners'
best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this
by offering guides who are familiar with animals' locations and habits,
permitting the use of dogs, and supplying "feeding stations" that lure
unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait.
Only a handful of states prohibit canned hunting, and there are no federal
laws regulating the practice at this time.(24) Congress is considering an
amendment to the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act that would
prohibit the transfer, transportation, or possession of exotic animals
"for entertainment or the collection of a trophy."(25)
'Accidental' Victims
Hunting "accidents" destroy property and injure or kill horses, cows,
dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters. In 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney
famously shot a friend while hunting quail on a canned-hunting preserve.(26)
According to the International Hunter Education Association, there are
dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries attributed to hunting in the
United States every year - and that number only includes incidents
involving humans.(27) It is an ongoing problem, and one warden explained
that "hunters seem unfamiliar with their firearms and do not have enough
respect for the damage they can do."(28)
...'
http://www.helpinganimals.com/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=53
dh
The things I pointed out are supported by every single
animal who is killed by them...
>and criticism
...and the lack of caring by people like yourself--which is the
criticism you refer to--is supported by your lack of caring.
>by a supporter of cockfighting.
Try to explain why you think it's worse to let mature male
birds fight for their lives and the lives of their hens and offspring,
than it is to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their throats.
GO:
>It's called "survival of the fittest". A fleeing and/or fighting chance..
How do you think calling it that eliminates or even reduces
any suffering for the poor victims?
>'When hunting deer, all [wolf] pack members frequently participate in
>locating and chasing down the prey. If the pack starts to fall behind in
>a chase, it will usually give up. Wolves cannot afford to expend
>precious energy in fruitless skirmishes. If the chosen prey is injured,
>weakened, old or very young and separated from the protection of the
>adults, however, the wolves often do catch up with it and attack. But
>even prey vulnerability does not guarantee dinner. The odds are rarely
>in favor of the wolf. For example, fewer than one out of ten attempts to
>kill a moose actually ends in success for the wolf.
They always result in terror for the moose, and cause them to
live a life of suffering from fear. The wolves have it bad too. And
as I pointed out, people like yourself don't care about all the extra
suffering you would impose simply because it bothers YOU that
humans hunt animals.
pearl
> Try to explain why you think it's worse to let mature male
> birds fight for their lives <irrelevancy snipped>
> than it is to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their throats.
> GO:
I don't support either -- you do. Put in order of preference:
a). Put in a small enclosure with ~jonnie~. Both of you
are armed with daggers. No escape. Fight to the death.
b). Hung up by your feet and having your throat slit. No
escape. Your legs may break. The blade may slash your
face instead and you're therefore slowly scalded to death.
c). The canned hunt. ~jonnie~ is given your exact address
and a licence to kill. You've no idea he's right there outside.
d). You're thrown out of a taxi outside ~jonnie's~ house
with a label on your forehead saying "dh@ stupid cracker".
GO:
pearl
Bonus question: Which of the above 4 options would your
ma (who presumably cares about you) choose, if she had to?
Mr.Smartypants
> > The things I pointed out
>
You have no degrees.
>
> >> and criticism
>
> > ...and the lack of caring by people like yourself
>
> *YOU* don't care, Goo. Your pretense of "caring" was exposed as sham
> long ago. All you care about is "meat...gravy". That's proved.
You have no degrees.
>
> >> by a supporter of cockfighting.
>
> > Try to explain why you think it's worse to let mature male
> > birds fight for their lives and the lives of their hens and offspring,
> > than it is to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their throats.
> > GO:
>
> Shut your lying cracker yap, Fuckwit. Broiler chickens are not "baby
> birds".-
You have no degrees.
Now shut up.
Mr.Smartypants
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> > On May 2, 8:01 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>> The things I pointed out
> >> You do not point anything out. You spew bullshit.
>
> > You have no degrees.
>
You have no degrees.
You know it. We know it.
>
> Shut your fucking jerk-off yap.
Mr. Smartypants
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> > On May 3, 12:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >>> On May 2, 8:01 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>> The things I pointed out
> >>>> You do not point anything out. You spew bullshit.
> >>> You have no degrees.
> >> I have degrees.
>
> > You have no degrees.
>
>
No. No you don't.
>
>
> > You know it. We know it.
>
> You know - we all know - that I have degrees.
No, Boobs. You have no degrees.
>
> We all know you *don't* have degrees of any kind - you're an admitted
> degreeless do-nothing jerk-off.
Degreeless like you, Boobs?
Rupert
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >>> The things I pointed out
> >> You do not point anything out. You spew bullshit.
>
> > You have no degrees.
>
>
> Shut your fucking jerk-off yap.
Then scan them in and post them.
Then he'll have to shut his fucking jerk-off yap.
Very simple.
Rupert
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> > On May 3, 12:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >>> On May 2, 8:01 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>> The things I pointed out
> >>>> You do not point anything out. You spew bullshit.
> >>> You have no degrees.
> >> I have degrees.
>
> > You have no degrees.
>
>
>
>
> > You know it. We know it.
>
>
No, I don't know it, Ball. When I see images of the testamurs, then
I'll know it.
Scan in the testamurs and post a link to them.
Mr.Smartypants
LOL!!!
Boobs isn't touching *this* thread with a 10 foot pole.
dh
>You do not point anything out.
The blatancy of your dishonesty has again put you in the
position of having outstupided yourself, Goo.
. . .
>Broiler chickens are not "baby birds".
Explain how you think that could be Goob, when they
are only 8 weeks old. Their bodies look mature, but they
are still immature none the less.
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:psji14trp5oi9m731...@4ax.com...
>
>> Try to explain why you think it's worse to let mature male
>> birds fight for their lives <irrelevancy snipped>
>> than it is to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their throats.
>> GO:
>
>I don't support either -- you do. Put in order of preference:
The main thing to consider in both of course is the life
which is experienced as a result of the practice. Game
Chickens are generally raised by a hen, so those days
are of positive value since they get to interact with their
mother and siblings, and experience the pleasures of
life that a baby chicken gets to experience. Often and
whenever possible when the young birds who stay with
their mothers for weeks or months are finally ready to
live on their own, they are let run free until they reach a
certain level of maturity. When the males reach a certain
level they start to become game, and the fighting goes
from yard battles over dominance to fights to the death.
Before that happens the young males (stags) need to be
caught up, but the young hens (pullets) never do turn
game and hens can run loose on the yard together even
when fully mature. The stags must be kept separated from
other males for their adult life but can and do enjoy the
company of hens and pullets. They almost always must
go fight for their lives at least once and usually more than
that, like up to four or five times. I've seen a few ten time
winners and up, but usually if you have a bird that good
people want to breed from him. So the battle stags and
cocks go off to fight for their own lives, and the lives of
their hens and offspring, and all future Game Chickens
in general. Most of them have decent lives of positive
value imo...at least most of the ones I've seen have been
well taken care of. The life of brood cocks and hens is
often the best any chickens ever get to enjoy.
Of course broilers usually do have it pretty good too. It's
just really short for them. Being hatched in incubators they
never know their mother or what it's like to be around a
mother hen, but they never know to miss it either and they
do get to interact with each other, never knowing or caring
if they are related to one another. By far the vast majority
of them have decent lives imo, which I got from personal
experience in broiler houses. They are scared at the time
they are caught and caged, but they know nothing of
death so are not in fear for their lives. Even when hung
upside down and having their throats cut they never do
know to be in fear for their lives. When they are not killed
properly and suffer the horrible scalding death, or when
they die of disease or are abused by others some of their
lives are most likely not worth living, but in general it seems
that broiler chickens have lives of positive value, as do
the game chickens.
So which is better? Which is worse? Since I feel the
majority of suffering that goes on for Game Chickens goes
on in the yards of people who don't care about their birds,
and since the law works against cockfighting so conditions
are not regulated as broiler houses are, I guess the cock
fighting probably produces the most suffering. But it also
produces many decent lives of positive value and could
certainly produce many many more if people appreciated
and regulated the activity in respectable ways, which is
something that will always be completely beyond your
ability to comprehend much less ever appreciate. You
pretend to care about animals, but you can't appreciate
the most important thing to them.
Can you look at your face in a mirror and honestly tell
yourself that you somehow do care about these animals,
even though you don't have the slightest bit of appreciation
for what's most important to them? If so, how? Since you're
opposed to every bit of it, that should tell even you that
you necessarily could make no distinction between what
should be acceptable and what should not, so how do you
always manage to miss that?
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:e:
>
> > On Thu, 01 May 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>
> >> You do not point anything out.
>
> > The blatancy of
>
>
> Your system date is wrong. Fix it.
You have no degrees, Boobs.
Fix that!
Mr.Smartypants
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
No. No you don't.
>
> You're stupid. You work at being stupid.
You stupidly told Rupert that a math term he used wasn't a real word.
It appears that *you* work at being stupid.
Mr.Smartypants
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> > On May 5, 11:54 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >>> On May 5, 11:38 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:e:
> >>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> You do not point anything out.
> >>>>> The blatancy of
> >>>> You do not point anything out, Fuckwit.
> >>>> Your system date is wrong. Fix it.
> >>> You have no degrees
> >> I have degrees, you stupid *admitted* degree-less do-nothing jerk-off.
>
> > No.
>
>
>
>
> >> You're stupid. You work at being stupid.
>
> > You stupidly told Rupert
>
LOL!!
Boobs! Have you gotten to the point of lying so continuously that you
now actually believe your own bullshit?
Rupert
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> > On May 5, 11:54 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >>> On May 5, 11:38 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:e:
> >>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> You do not point anything out.
> >>>>> The blatancy of
> >>>> You do not point anything out, Fuckwit.
> >>>> Your system date is wrong. Fix it.
> >>> You have no degrees
> >> I have degrees, you stupid *admitted* degree-less do-nothing jerk-off.
>
> > No.
>
>
>
>
> >> You're stupid. You work at being stupid.
>
> > You stupidly told Rupert
>
Oh, don't be absurd, Ball. What else would have be the point of citing
the dictionary? You've *recently* repeatedly said "axiomatizable" is
not a real word. There's been no retraction. You want me to waste my
time finding it in the archives?
Do we have a concession from you now that it's a real word, do we?
Mr. Smartypants
> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 1:59 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >>> On May 5, 11:54 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> the admitted jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
> >>>>> On May 5, 11:38 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:e:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>> You do not point anything out.
> >>>>>>> The blatancy of
> >>>>>> You do not point anything out, Fuckwit.
> >>>>>> Your system date is wrong. Fix it.
> >>>>> You have no degrees
> >>>> I have degrees, you stupid *admitted* degree-less do-nothing jerk-off.
> >>> No.
> >> Yes.
>
> >>>> You're stupid. You work at being stupid.
> >>> You stupidly told Rupert
> >> No.
>
> > LOL!!
>
>
tell Rupert what you used the dictionary for, Boobs.
Mr.Smartypants
> Because he wants to be. It's all he knows.
>
> What a stupid twat.
Tell Rupert what you used the dictionary for, Boobs.
Why do you want Rupert to tell his doctor about you?
Is this a cry for help, Boobs?
Mr. Smartypants
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
> > On May 6, 6:09 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Because he wants to be. It's all he knows.
>
> >> What a stupid twat.
>
> > Tell Rupert
>
You tell a lot of people a lot of things which aren't true.
It's nothing to brag about.
>
> I tell you what a stupid, do-nothing jerk-off you are all the time. You
> admit to being exactly that. Too fucking funny.
Is this along the lines of axiomatizable "is not a REAL word"?
dh
>Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:56:14 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>>>
>>>> Try to explain why you think it's worse to let mature male
>>>> birds fight for their lives <irrelevancy snipped>
>>>> than it is to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their throats.
>>>> GO:
>>> I don't support either -- you do. Put in order of preference:
>>
>> The main thing to consider in both of course is the life
>> which is experienced
>
>No.
LOL! So what do you think is, Goo?
Mr.Smartypants
>
> Not "the life which is experienced", Goo. There is nothing to
> "consider". Livestock animals "getting to experience life" is not
> important in any way.-
So what do you think is, Boobs?
Mr.Smartypants
<snip>
> > So what do you think is
>
It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to merit
consideration.
Congratulations Boobs!!
You finally dug deep into your withered soul and dredged up enough
integrity to speak the truth.
Your realization that your thoughts are irrelevant is a real
breakthrough.
Mr.Smartypants
> You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
> > <snip>
> >>> So what do you think is
>
> >> It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to merit
> >> consideration.
>
>
> Fuck off, runny. You edited my comment, leaving out important material.
Important material!!?
Oh Boobs,......stop it......you have me ROTFLMAO........oh
~gasp~.......too funny.
>
> Irrelevant. Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - stupidly believes
> that animals "getting to experience life" merits consideration.
> It does not. I was confirming that it does not. It is irrelevant
> what I think *is* important enough to merit consideration.
>
> I also wrote this:
>
> [runny will now respond with more stupid, do-nothing jerk-off bullshit;
> all he ever does]
>
> and that's exactly what you did: you responded with more stupid,
> do-nothing jerk-off bullshit.
>
> [runny will now respond with *MORE* stupid, do-nothing jerk-off
> bullshit; all he ever does]
Rupert
> You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
> > <snip>
> >>> So what do you think is
>
> >> It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to merit
> >> consideration.
>
>
> Fuck off, runny. You edited my comment, leaving out important material.
>
Of course you would never deliberately distort the meaning of what
someone else says by snipping words out. :)
Mr.Smartypants
> You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 5:05 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
> >> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>
> >> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> >> time, runny bullshitted:
>
> >>> On May 8, 4:22 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>> So what do you think is
> >>>> It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to merit
> >>>> consideration.
> >>> Congratulations Rudy!!
> >> Fuck off, runny. You edited my comment, leaving out important material.
>
>
> >> Irrelevant. Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - stupidly believes
> >> that animals "getting to experience life" merits consideration.
> >> It does not. I was confirming that it does not. It is irrelevant
> >> what I think *is* important enough to merit consideration.
>
> >> I also wrote this:
>
> >> [runny will now respond with more stupid, do-nothing jerk-off bullshit;
> >> all he ever does]
>
> >> and that's exactly what you did: you responded with more stupid,
> >> do-nothing jerk-off bullshit.
>
> >> [runny will now respond with *MORE* stupid, do-nothing jerk-off
> >> bullshit; all he ever does]
>
> stupid, do-nothing jerk-off bullshit. It's all you do.-
Keep hiding from Rupert, Boobs. It's amusing to watch.
dh
>Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>> LOL! So what do you think is, Rudy?
>
>Not "the life which is experienced",
Goober, you poor idiot, we know that. Do you have any clue
at all what you think could possibly be a more important
consideration, Goo. If not, then amusingly you have made it
clear you have no idea what should be taken into consideration,
and therefore obviously have no clue what you think you're
trying to talk about.
> Goo. There is nothing to
>"consider". Livestock animals "getting to experience life" is not
>important in any way.
It's not important in a single whay that you can comprehend
Goober, but your ineptitude doesn't reduce its importance in
the least.
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
> presented no challenge:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 07 May 2008 07:18:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
> >>> On Mon, 05 May 2008, Rudy C. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
> >>>>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:56:14 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>
> >>>>>>> Try to explain why you think it's worse to let mature male
> >>>>>>> birds fight for their lives <irrelevancy snipped>
> >>>>>>> than it is to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their throats.
> >>>>>>> GO:
> >>>>>> I don't support either -- you do. Put in order of preference:
> >>>>> The main thing to consider in both of course is the life
> >>>>> which is experienced
> >>>> No.
> >>> LOL! So what do you think is, Rudy?
> >> Not "the life which is experienced",
>
>
> No, Goo, you don't know it - that's why you keep prattling on, stupidly,
> about "considering" the animals' lives.
>
> >> Goo. There is nothing to
> >> "consider". Livestock animals "getting to experience life" is not
> >> important in any way.
>
> > It's not important in a single whay that
>
> *YOU* don't even think it's important, Goo - you only pretend to think
> it is. You do not, and never did, care about the animals' lives, Goo -
> *only* the products. Your charade is over.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to merit
consideration." - Boobs
Rupert
>
> [runny will now respond with more stupid, do-nothing jerk-off bullshit]
You're not hiding? Great.
"You stupidly told Rupert a math term he used wasn't a real word" -
Ronny
"No" - Jonathan Ball
Explain how I did not demonstrate this claim to be false.
Also, tell me what I should say to my doctor next time I see her. What
questions should I ask?
dh
>On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:07:23 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 9, 5:28 am, Goo wrote:
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
>>> presented no challenge:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 07 May 2008 07:18:34 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>>> >>> On Mon, 05 May 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>>> >>>>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:56:14 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Try to explain why you think it's worse to let mature male
>>> >>>>>>> birds fight for their lives <irrelevancy snipped>
>>> >>>>>>> than it is to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their throats.
>>> >>>>>>> GO:
>>> >>>>>> I don't support either -- you do. Put in order of preference:
>>> >>>>> The main thing to consider in both of course is the life
>>> >>>>> which is experienced
>>> >>>> No.
>>> >>> LOL! So what do you think is, Goo?
>>> >> Not "the life which is experienced",
>>>
>>> > Rudy, we know that.
>>>
>>> No, Goo, you don't know it - that's why you keep prattling on, stupidly,
>>> about "considering" the animals' lives.
>>>
>>> >> Goo. There is nothing to
>>> >> "consider". Livestock animals "getting to experience life" is not
>>> >> important in any way.
>>>
>>> > It's not important in a single whay that
>>>
>>> It's not important in *any* "whay" [sic], you stupid goober cracker.
>>> *YOU* don't even think it's important, Goo - you only pretend to think
>>> it is. You do not, and never did, care about the animals' lives, Goo -
>>> *only* the products. Your charade is over.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>>"It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to merit
>>consideration." - Boobs
>> [snip mangled runny hamilton bullshit]
There was no mangling Goober. That is a quote from you,
showing without doubt that you have no clue what you think
should be taken into consideration because you are too
stupid, too ignorant, and too inept, Goo.
Rudy Canoza
presented no challenge:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:09:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
There was mangling, just as you do, Goo. You're the most dishonest
poster ever encountered in this group.
Mr.Smartypants
There was no mangling, Boobs. Only you mangle.
Every time one of your idiotic statements comes back to haunt you,
there is a great amount of squealing and crying from your corner.
Maybe you could save yourself a lot of embarrassment by just shutting
the f*** up.
BooBo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even in a nuclear holocaust, Jonny Ball will survive only to
continue the madness.
dh
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:43:45 +0900, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008, Goo cried:
>>
>>>> [snip mangled runny hamilton bullshit]
>>
>> There was no mangling Goober. That is a quote from you,
>>showing without doubt that you have no clue what you think
>>should be taken into consideration because you are too
>>stupid, too ignorant, and too inept, Goo.
>
>There was mangling, just as you do
Goo, YOU mangle. Other people do not. But then since
you lie about everything you have to lie about this too. You
just got through, stupidly, mangling at least one of Rupert's
the other day. Now you're outstupiding yourself over it...or
at least it's time for you to get on it. So let's give you a couple
of fun new ways to screw up, fail completely, and display the
grandeur of your absurd ineptitude:
1. Try explaining why you mangled Rupert's quotes about
where he does/doesn't work, and his offer to ask his shrink
what type(s) of idiot he/she thinks you are.
2. IF you have any clue how you think you can make it
appear that you have some idea what you think *is* important
enough to merit consideration in regards to the ethics of raising
animals for food, try explaining that.
(prediction: Goo will fail completely.)
dh
>On May 10, 11:37 am, Goo lied:
>
>> There was mangling, just as you do, Goo. You're the most dishonest
>> poster ever encountered in this group.-
>
>
>There was no mangling, Boobs. Only you mangle.
That's pretty much true. No one does it as stupidly as Goo
anyway, and most people do it extremely rarely if ever. What
if most people were like Goo? Just the one Goober ruined
the ng.
>Every time one of your idiotic statements comes back to haunt you,
>there is a great amount of squealing and crying from your corner.
LOL. Well said. Not always so though, because sometimes
Goo tries to defend his claims in his Goobal way of simply
insisting they are true, and other times he claims to disagree
with himself but never seems able to explain how. The "Dutch"
character is prone to that as well, I've noticed.
One of the Goober's biggest objections is when someone
omits dishonesty and attempted trickery from his quotes. We
know Goo agrees with eliminationists that no farm animals
benefit from farming:
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
We know Goo agrees that regardles of how decent the
conditions, the deliberate killing erases any good from it:
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
so from the above we can conclude Goo agrees that the moral
harm is greater than any benefit they might derive since he
claimed specifically that they derive none, and also because
he specifically said that's how he feels:
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
The Goober claims to disagree with himself sometimes, yet he
can never explain how. The supposed "mangling" Goo cried
about is simply not including his dishonest attempts to make it
appear that he doesn't agree with the ideas he's promoting. We
know Goo feels life is no benefit and he thinks the moral harm
from killing makes it of negative value regardless of all else, so
from that we know Goo agrees with himself that not raising them
in the first place is the ethically superior choice:
"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice."
even when he lies and tries to deny it. From his own quotes
we also know the Goober feels that some people should be
veg*ns:
"People who don't want them to exist should
be "vegans"." - Goo
so any criticism he makes about it to people who are, is
just another display of Goobal idiotics, disagreeing with
himself without being able to explain how...
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, THE Goo - lied and presented no challenge
>
> > the cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >> Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>> There was mangling, just as you do, Goo. You're the most dishonest
> >>> poster ever encountered in this group.-
>
> >> There was no mangling, Boobs. Only you mangle.
>
> > That's pretty much true.
>
No mangling, Boobs.
>
> Fact: "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals.
Not if they are inhumanely kept and ultimately murdered.
dh
>On May 13, 5:06 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> Fact: "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals.
>
>
>Not if they are inhumanely kept and ultimately murdered.
Goo says it's wrong regardless of whether the animals
have decent lives of positive value or not:
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
dh
>No. You
You proved my prediction correct by failing completely, Goo.
Mr.Smartypants
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
And yet Boobs continually insists he doesn't believe a pre-existent
state exists while arguing that it does.
It's not surprising that he can't explain why he thinks any of this.
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the incredibly stupid lying cracker - lied
> and presented no challenge
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:05:06 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>
> >>> On Fri, 9 May 2008, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the incredibly stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 08 May 2008, Rudy J. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> [snip mangled runny hamilton bullshit]
> >>>>> There was no mangling Goober.
> >> No. You and runny hamilton - the cunt - mangle.
>
> >> Fact: "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals.
>
>
> No. No prediction; just the usual tedious cracker Goo bullshit.
>
> You and the impotent cunt runny mangle quotes. I do not.
You do and you leave out IMPORTANT MATERIAL.
>
> Fact: "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals.-
Is that because the pre-existent state is better, Boobs?
How's my system time?
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the incredibly stupid lying cracker - lied
> and presented no challenge
>
> [...]
>
> Your computer date is wrong. Fix it.
How's my computer system date and time, Boobs?
Can you advise how to fix it to bring it into comportment with GOOBER
WORLD TIME?
dh
It makes you wonder:
1. if he has any idea himself
2. if so, why he can't explain it sanely or even insanely
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> posted:
>
> WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>
> Published by cyrano2 at 8:30 pm under Animal Liberation, Cruel Idiots,
> Empathy Deficient, Exploitation, Moral Cowardice, Moral Rot, Speciesism
>
> BY WAY OF PREFACE TO A PERSONAL STORY
>
> Man is a creature of astonishing contradictions and enormous moral range.
> The same species that produces fools, knaves, cowards, a massive number
> of mediocrities, and assorted monsters of depravity, also gives us geniuses,
> saints, and heroes of exemplary virtue. The spread of behavior is so vast as
> to be almost incomprehensible. But maybe the most interesting thing about
> humans is their capacity to travel from one point of the moral spectrum to
> another, from evil to good, and from good to indifference and often tacit
> acceptance of evil.
>
> Modern-day hunters and people who callously use animals for vanity and
> or "recreation" (remember Michael Vick) fall into an especially troublesome
> category. In the vast majority of cases the person in question is simply a
> victim of unexamined assumptions and cultural traditions, and a pitiful lack
> of empathetic imagination, a total failure of compassion. Such individuals
> commit disgusting acts, but the baffling thing about the horrors of this
> world, what some call the sheer "banality of evil", is that committing an evil
> act does not per se signify the person is utterly evil. People are often not
> only contradictory in their behavior, they also change their ways and undergo
> redemption. I'm not a conventionally religious person, at all, but the idea of
> redemption - in a secular, not Catholic form - I find powerful and
> touching in the extreme. For by showing that humans are indeed capable of
> understanding their wrongful deeds, that, despite all the muck that surrounds
> us, decency manages to survive somehow, and that in consequence they
> indeed aspire to live in peace with their conscience, because, if nothing else
> bad actions do in fact bother them, deny them rest, redemption underscores
> the possibility of a better world grounded in real peace and justice for
> everyone, none the least for the most exploited and brutalized creatures on
> this earth, the animals.
>
> The personal document I reproduce below has special significance for me
> because it is about redemption, a hunter's redemption. Although I have
> always been familiar with weapons of various types, I never took to the
> "pleasures" of shooting animals, "live targets." I never could see the "sport"
> in it at all. And never will. Thus the hunter's mind, a person who sees
> absolutely nothing wrong in killing a beautiful, innocent, living breathing
> creature for his own personal pleasure, or some other frivolous reason or
> pretext (and I should tell you that after more than three decades in the
> animal defense movement I've heard just about all the pro-hunting arguments
> ever crafted by this fraternity) remains a baffling mystery. I was therefore
> immensely excited when, back in 1986, when I served as editor at large for
> The Animals' Agenda, the first independent US animal rights publication,
> I got this unsolicited testimony from Dallas Gragg, a former hunter.
>
> Dallas's words are effortlessly eloquent and they remain true to this day.
> The strong personal conscience and integrity that illuminated his journey
> of moral self-discovery was there all along, only momentarily suppressed
> by the pressures of conventionality and cultural norms. I am therefore
> confident you'll find his testimony as moving as when I first read it more
> than 20 years ago. The truths he speaks about can never be extinguished.
> For they define what the transformation potential of human beings is all
> about. I am happy to be able to share Dallas's story with our Cyrano
> audience. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for coming forward.
>
> - Patrice Greanville, The Greanville Journal
>
> =============================================
>
> WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>
> BY ROY DALLAS GRAGG
> [Original dateline: Animals' Agenda, November 1986]*
>
> I WAS BORN in the mountains of North Carolina near Grandfather Mountain
> and Mt. Mitchell. Hunting, killing and butchering animals was a way of life
> for
> the mountain people. I killed my first hog at age eight. I had expected the
> animal to fall as if by magic when I squeezed the trigger of my grandfather's
> old
> ..22 caliber rifle. I was both surprised and alarmed when the animal screamed
> with pain and agony. "More carefully," my uncle said, "You have to hit him in
> the head." When the rifle cracked the second time, the animal fell dead.
>
> I couldn't sleep that night - I could still hear the animal's screams. The
> adults
> laughed the next day when I told them it just didn't seem right to shoot an
> animal when he was locked helplessly in a pen.
>
> I dreaded October each year-that was the month when the hogs and steers were
> killed and butchered. Early in the morning barrels of water were heated over
> roaring fires to scald the animals so that their hair could be scraped off. I
> got
> a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when a butcher knife slashed the hog's
> throat and the blood ran across the ground as the pitiful animal convulsed and
> kicked. The air smelled of death, especially when the hogs were gutted. I
> noticed that the horse, a huge Clydesdale mare named Bell, would sniff the
> air,
> and with big eyes run away. She too smelled the death. I always stayed outside
> whenever possible because the stench of lard being boiled on the woodstove
> was unbearable.
>
> However, it was always my job to turn the handle of the hand-operated sausage
> machine. Spring brought another dreaded time, when the man came to castrate
> the pigs and dehorn the cattle. I would hold my ears to shut out the sound of
> their agonized screams. "Don't be a sissy-you'll get used to it," I was told,
> but
> I never did.
>
> Sundays usually brought another unpleasant task: catching a chicken and
> "wringing" its neck. The sight of the unfortunate creatures' bodies jumping
> high in the air with a broken neck is still fresh in my mind, even though it
> was
> over thirty years ago.
>
> To make matters worse, the butchered birds and animals had often been pets.
> I had a pet chicken named Red. I trained Red, a big red hen, to sit patiently
> on
> a fence post or other object for hours until I set her down. I also had a pet
> turkey named Fred. As is the fate of most turkeys, Fred ended up on the
> Thanksgiving table. The crowd roared with laughter when I said, "I'm not
> thankful. Fred was my friend and I'm not going to eat him." My cousins
> taunted me until I finally ate a small piece of breast, but I felt like a
> cannibal.
>
> I rather enjoyed hunting because I didn't have to butcher the birds and
> animals.
> By the time I was fourteen I was a "crack shot". I never missed. Squirrel
> hunting was my favorite because the elusive gray squirrels were hard to hit.
> One day I grazed a big gray squirrel and he fell right in front of my dog Rex.
> The squirrel was putting up a furious battle against the dog who was many
> times its size. I sat down and thought for awhile. I couldn't help but admire
> the little animal. He had wanted to live!
>
> The mountain people often shot the red squirrels or "boomers" for shooting
> practice. The red squirrels were not good to eat so they were thrown away.
> But that didn't sit right with me either. I doubted that God made his boomers
> just to shoot at.
>
> One morning, as I sat on top of a steep hill waiting for the sun to come up
> and
> the game to start moving about, I noticed many small oak trees on the hill.
> Acorns are heavy, especially this variety. They were as big as chestnuts and
> probably weighed several ounces. I hadn't seen this particular variety before.
>
> I strolled down the hill and crossed a small valley to another hill and found
> the
> parent tree, a huge oak about four feet in diameter. I was puzzled. How did
> the
> acorns travel across a valley to another hill? The wind didn't blow them, that
> was for sure, and floodwaters don't run uphill. I saw something move out of
> the corner of my eye. It was a gray squirrel leaping from a huge oak heading
> across the valley. I dropped the squirrel with a single shot. Imagine my
> surprise
> when I picked up the squirrel and he had one of those huge acorns lodged in
> his mouth! I had been shooting the planters of the forests! On the way home
> I said to myself, "So that's why God made squirrels."
>
> A few years later, I joined the army and became qualified as an expert
> rifleman.
> "I have never seen anyone shoot like that," I overheard the sergeant tell the
> lieutenant.
>
> "He dropped 16 men (targets) in less than 20 seconds!" Later the lieutenant
> said to me "You could do that in Vietnam, too. The slant-eyes are just bigger
> game." But I didn't make it to Vietnam. An ulcer got me a medical discharge
> and I returned home to the mountains.
>
> I still hunted some but I thought about the squirrels. If they were nature's
> planters, what were the other animals' jobs? Later I noticed holly bushes in
> sheltered mountain valleys, over 20 miles from their natural growing range.
> It was quite obvious that birds had carried the seeds this great distance.
>
> By the time I was thirty I had quit hunting entirely and began studying the
> birds
> and animals. I read books on ecology and the environment. And I returned to
> the forests - this time with a camera instead of a gun. I watched the
> squirrels
> carefully. They would always follow the same path through the trees, swinging
> like trapeze artists. Occasionally I would see a flying squirrel gliding
> silently
> through the trees or a ruffled grouse blasting away like a rocket.
>
> I marked the spots where the nuts carried by squirrels fell and returned in
> the
> spring to find small trees growing in those areas. I also observed the
> "worthless"
> red squirrels burying nuts. It occurred to me that nut-bearing trees, oaks,
> hickories, walnuts, chestnuts and many, many others all depended on the little
> animals to transport their seed throughout the forests.
>
> It should be obvious to any thinking person that nature is a powerful but
> delicate
> force. Each living thing on the planet is striving for survival in one way or
> another,
> and striving to keep its kind from becoming extinct. Various species of
> plants,
> birds and animals have survived earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, fires,
> floods
> and many other kinds of natural catastrophes only to fall victim to uncaring
> humans.
>
> Hunters are directly responsible - to name a few - for the extinction of the
> passenger pigeon as well as many kinds of island-dwelling birds. The buffalo
> very nearly became extinct after hunters [retained by commercial interests]
> went
> after them largely to wipe out the Indians' [main] food supply. Starve'em to
> submission.
>
> This strategy left more than 50 million of the great creatures on the plains
> to
> decay in the sun. Hunters have brought the mountain lion, the grizzly bear,
> the
> whooping crane, and even the symbol of our nation, the bald eagle, to the
> brink of extinction.
>
> I began studying hunters from "the other side of the fence:' When working with
> hunters I would ask their opinions of hunting. One hunter's reply was, "God
> made animals for me to eat - what else are they good for?" Another said,
> "It makes me forget my troubles to hunt and fish." I thought long and hard
> about
> his statement. Humans vent their stress and their frustrations from daily life
> on
> innocent wildlife. Hunting is a one-sided game with only one winner - human
> beings. This is why hunters refer to birds and animals as "game". When the
> hunter has hunted down and killed an animal, he has "won" the game. More often
> than not, the creature is killed for pleasure instead of for food. A certain
> sadistic
> pleasure is derived by killing another creature. When a human kills an animal
> the
> act fuels his ego: he has mastered the creature by taking its life.
>
> Why else would a trophy hunter spend thousands of dollars, hike through
> steaming
> snake- and insect-infested swamps or climb steep cliffs to kill a magnificent
> member
> of another species? Why else would he cut off the head of his victim and leave
> the
> body to rot? Why else would he take the head to a taxidermist and mount it
> over his
> fireplace? He has dominated and killed the "beast", and therefore hangs its
> head up
> for all the world to see that he is the mighty and fearless hunter. It is
> nothing but fuel
> for the insecure ego of small men.
>
> The hunter, with the scent of death in his nostrils, has little respect for
> his neighbor
> who enjoys seeing the creatures on his property alive. "No hunting" and "No
> trespassing" signs are torn down or shot full of holes. A hunting license is a
> permit
> to kill indiscriminately. Our government sells out our wildlife for the price
> of a
> hunting license. Soon after becoming an anti-hunting advocate, I found my tame
> mallard ducks shot and floating on their pond. They too had enjoyed living and
> I
> enjoyed them. But some pervert found pleasure in their death. Once I observed
> hunters exterminating a covey of Bob White quail. Their cheerful calls can no
> longer be heard around the small mountain community where I grew up as a
> child.
>
> TRADITION is perhaps the worst enemy of the animals: even our holidays call
> for the killing of birds and animals. These barbaric traditions, including
> hunting,
> rodeos and other cruel sports, are taught to children and thus passed down
> from
> generation to generation. Only a little more than a century ago blacks were
> considered to be animals and were treated as such. Similarly. during the
> second
> World War, Jews were considered to be subhuman by the Nazis, or perhaps even
> subanimal, and were killed by the millions.
>
> Even today we abuse our fellow humans through boxing, wrestling and other
> cruel
> sports. How can the perpetrators of cruelty among us be expected to respect
> animals when they do not even respect humans? Before we can understand animal
> abuse we must understand ourselves. Humanity lives not by reality but by
> habits -
> often anchored in selfishness and staggering ignorance. It is this aspect of
> human
> nature we must work against.
>
> If my story can, in some small way, influence the traditional way of thinking
> and
> the ignorant beliefs about our fellow creatures, I would be greatly pleased.
> This
> story is to aid our fellow creatures who have long suffered at the hands of
> mankind. May they someday live in peace, without suffering and fear.
>
> http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=684
Newsgroup distribution widened.
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
dh
>In article <fv52jh$hl8$1...@reader01.news.esat.net>,
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> posted:
>>
>> WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>>
>> Published by cyrano2 at 8:30 pm under Animal Liberation, Cruel Idiots,
>> Empathy Deficient, Exploitation, Moral Cowardice, Moral Rot, Speciesism
>>
>> BY WAY OF PREFACE TO A PERSONAL STORY
>>
>> Man is a creature of astonishing contradictions and enormous moral range.
>> The same species that produces fools, knaves, cowards, a massive number
>> of mediocrities, and assorted monsters of depravity, also gives us geniuses,
>> saints, and heroes of exemplary virtue. The spread of behavior is so vast as
>> to be almost incomprehensible. But maybe the most interesting thing about
>> humans is their capacity to travel from one point of the moral spectrum to
>> another, from evil to good, and from good to indifference and often tacit
>> acceptance of evil.
>>
>> Modern-day hunters and people who callously use animals for vanity and
>> or "recreation" (remember Michael Vick) fall into an especially troublesome
>> category.
So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". They want to
abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to completely
inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human predators.
Things like that cause more suffering for the prey animals, especially for
baby animals and the very young. As yet we have no reason to accept
that method over human hunting which causes less suffering and
attempts to maintain the optimum population for the area, in complete
contrast to the misnomer advocates' suggested methods which give
no consideration to such things at all.
Jeff Matz
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, dumber than my cat - lied and presented no
> challenge:
>>>> Modern-day hunters and people who callously use animals for vanity and
>>>> or "recreation" (remember Michael Vick) fall into an especially
>>>> troublesome
>>>> category.
>>
>>
>> So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". They want to
>> abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to completely
>> inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human predators.
>
>
> Irrelevant.
Hardly.
> You are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by
> killing them in the place of other things that might kill them.
On the contrary.
We are doing something better by having people "legaly) hunt and EAT
the critters that taste great, then letting them starve to death by over
population, or be eaten alive by larger wild critters.
If hunting was bad, then how did we evolve?
Jeff Matz
> Jeff Matz wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, dumber than my cat - lied and presented
>>> no challenge:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Modern-day hunters and people who callously use animals for vanity
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> or "recreation" (remember Michael Vick) fall into an especially
>>>>>> troublesome
>>>>>> category.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". They want to
>>>> abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to
>>>> completely
>>>> inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human predators.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> Hardly.
>
>
Hunting and gathering is still a part of everyday life in EVERY
civilization known to man.
If you refuse to believe that, then you are dumber then the rock you
live under.
Sharks, Tigers, Lions, and etc. have the NATURAL "right" to eat humans
and other critters, if they get hungry, and if/they we are available.
Same as with us Humans, we have the right to feed upon the lands, and
it's critters, when we need to fill our bellies.
You have a problem with that?
>>> You are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by killing them
>>> in the place of other things that might kill them.
I sure as hell am!
I LOVE killing the over populated creatures that destroy crops, and make
a naughty in my yard.
>> On the contrary.
>> We are doing something better by having people "legaly) hunt and EAT
>> the critters that taste great, then letting them starve to death by
>> over population, or be eaten alive by larger wild critters.
> No, we aren't doing anything "better". The animals don't care. They
> don't have the capacity to care about it.
Who the fuck cares about what they "care" about?
All I care about is how they taste, and what kind of hides they produce
so that I can wear them, and sit on them in my car.
>>
>> If hunting was bad,
>
>
> I didn't say hunting is bad, stupid. What I said is that Goo's (Fuckwit
> David Harrison's) rationale for it is bullshit. It *is* bullshit: you
> are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by killing them in place
> of something else that might kill them.
That's what YOU misunderstood, you retard.
The ability and "good" for humans to hunt and kill certain wild animals
_IS_ for there(certain wild animals) general well being!
We HAVE to keep there population DOWN, so that they don't become extinct
due to starvation and disease!
Don't you have even ONE working brain cell that talks to another, and
know how the system works?
>
>
>> then how did we evolve?
>
>
> You have it backward, stupid. We didn't evolve *by* hunting; human
> hunting developed as a result of earlier evolution.
Damn, yer numb!
I didn't say humans hunting other humans, you retard.
We are still Humans that need to hunt and eat flesh from time to time to
survive.
Hunting developed Humans skills to SURVIVE, therefore EVOLVE, to
become the superior people we are today...well, except you, eveidently.
dh
>Jeff Matz wrote:
>> Goo wrote:
>>> Jeff Matz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh pointed out:
>>>>
>>>>>> So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". They
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to
>>>>>> completely
>>>>>> inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human predators.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hardly.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, completely - it is completely irrelevant.
>>
>> Hunting and gathering is still a part of everyday life in EVERY
>> civilization known to man.
>
>Irrelevant. It still isn't doing anything "nice" for the animals killed.
>
>
>>
>>>>> You are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by killing them
>>>>> in the place of other things that might kill them.
>>
>> I sure as hell am!
>
>No, you aren't.
>
>
>> I LOVE killing the over populated creatures that destroy crops, and make
>> a naughty in my yard.
>
>That may be, but it isn't doing anything "nice" for the animals you
>kill.
Most likely you don't even know what kind of animals he's talking
about for one thing Goober, and even if you do--which you almost
certainly do not--you don't know how they would die if he didn't kill
them, so you don't know enough to even think about it. How does
he kill them, Goo?
>It's something good or "nice" for you, not them.
>
>
>>>> On the contrary.
>>>> We are doing something better by having people "legaly) hunt and EAT
>>>> the critters that taste great, then letting them starve to death by
>>>> over population, or be eaten alive by larger wild critters.
>>
>>> No, we aren't doing anything "better". The animals don't care. They
>>> don't have the capacity to care about it.
>>
>> Who the fuck cares about what they "care" about?
>
>If you're going to claim to be doing something "better" for them by
>killing them, then you have to assume they care.
No Goob. In order to care they would have to be both aware
of the situation and able to appreciate it. They are neither, Goo.
>But they don't.
True Goo. Also completely meaningless.
>You are not doing something "better" for them by killing them rather
>than allowing them to be killed by wild animals.
What sort of wild animals would kill them Goob? How would they
do it, and at what age?
>>>> If hunting was bad,
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say hunting is bad, stupid. What I said is that Goo's
>>> (Fuckwit David Harrison's) rationale for it is bullshit. It *is*
>>> bullshit: you are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by
>>> killing them in place of something else that might kill them.
>>
>> That's what YOU misunderstood,
>
>No, I didn't misunderstand anything.
>
>
>> The ability and "good" for humans to hunt and kill certain wild animals
>> _IS_ for there(certain wild animals) general well being!
>
>We're not talking about overpopulation.
Yes Goo that is exactly what we're talking about. Well, actually
we're talking about preventing overpopulation which would result
in starvation and disease etc, by using human hunters who cause
less suffering and also design hunting regulations which maintain
a desired population size, unlike nonhuman predators who don't
know or care anything about things like that.
>In any case, if there more wild
>predator animals, that would keep the population of prey animals down.
What keeps their population down Goo? WHY, Goober, should
we prefer it to human hunting? As yet you've given no reason, so
try giving one...or two, Goo. Go:
Jeff Matz
SWIFTLY!
They never know what happened compared to the slow, cruel, and rather
frightening, EVIL death they would have via "nature."
See?
I'm a "nice" guy.
Blast them... carve them, EAT THEM!
And drink their blood while it's still warm for shit's-n-giggles.
Jeff Matz
> Jeff Matz wrote:
>
>
>
>> EVIL death they would have via "nature."
>
>
While I think it's rightous, the deer is most likely terrified fopr
quite some time before it finally dies at the teeth of a pack of wolves.
> You really are a stupid fuckwit.
Coming from you, that's a compliment.
Jeff Matz
> righteous or evil or any other human moral value. It just is what it is.
>
>
>> the deer is most likely terrified fopr quite some time before it
>> finally dies at the teeth of a pack of wolves.
>
>
Egads, but yer a dumb twit.
> But it doesn't matter even if it is. It still doesn't make it "better"
> for you to kill the deer rather than the wolf killing it.
Sure it does.
It dies instantly without knowing what hit it.
And I get another nice rack to hang on my wall... not to mention all
that great meat to eat.
Jeff Matz
> way you would feel if you were attacked by wolves, and you're projecting
> about being a dumb twit. You're dumb, jeffie - you're a dumb,
> semi-literate fuckwit.
>
>
>>
>>> But it doesn't matter even if it is. It still doesn't make it
>>> "better" for you to kill the deer rather than the wolf killing it.
>>
>>
>> Sure it does.
>
>
>
>
>> It dies instantly without knowing what hit it.
>
>
>
> Once again, stupid semi-literate jeffie, you're projecting your wishes
> onto the deer. YOU might give some thought to going quickly and
> relatively painlessly vs. going slowly and excruciatingly, but the deer
> doesn't.
How do you know?
Why do deer and other critters RUN AWAY when being attacked?
All animals (including mankind) have the basic instinct to "fight" or
"take flight."
Explain that,if your very limmited brain allows such a concept.
> You're engaging in stupid, unsophisticated anthropomorphism
> (go look it up - I know you don't know what it means.)
No, I was dealling with you.. a retarded shit-stained veggie eating only
homo.
> You're stupid, jeffie - stupid, shallow and childlike.
And yer gay.
Jeff Matz
> Jeff Matz wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff Matz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Matz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff Matz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff Matz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff Matz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> care - it doesn't have the capacity.
Again I ask, HOW do you know>
>> Why do deer and other critters RUN AWAY when being attacked?
> Instinct.
You snipped a bit and refused to answer.
Explain "Instinct".
Like the deer that run away, you do as well.
>
>
>>> You're engaging in stupid, unsophisticated anthropomorphism (go look
>>> it up - I know you don't know what it means.)
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I was dealling with you.. a retarded shit-stained veggie eating
>> only homo.
>
>
> No, jeffie, you weren't.
Yes, I am!
I post to your responces, YOU, a retarded shit-stained veggie eating
only homo answers when I demand you to.
See how that works?