And the point of doing such a thing is exactly what?
Is it for animal population control, is it only to feed yourself and your family, is it to protect someone when there is no other form of protection available or is it (hint; this is rhetorical) to show what big 'nads you have to other people who take equal pleasure in killing something and calling it sport?
I was merely injecting a little humor into the thread. But now that you have pushed your overly-pompous point, I will say that although I do not hunt, I am well-acquainted with many, many people who do, and your words came nowhere near hitting any valid targets among them. I am sure that there must exist, perhaps in less-rural areas than mine, some number of jerks who might fit the description you hurled. But none of the ones I know are like that at all. They all hunt in order to put meat in their freezers. They also tend to be nature lovers and conservationists and seem to admire and respect wild animals more than most other people I know. I'd guess it's a cultural gap and that if you lived among them you would find that they are fine people, although I'm not sure they would feel the same way about you.
A much better question might be to ask why some people (ahem) feel so qualified to try to tell everyone else what they should or shouldn't do.
Last edited:
I'm no fan of sports anyway, they all seem equally silly and boring to me. Never could get interested. Unfortunately that leaves me out of about 40% of male conversation.
So making hunting a sport isn't an argument that will have much weight with me. Might be different for other folks.
I fail to see how that is implied in his post.
Animals merely use the best tools they have. Sadly our tools are disproportionate for the natural world.
If I was as sensitive a soul as many others, I would take offense at your comment but I will take it as what it is; two logical fallacies; Strawman and ad hominem. I expected better from gootee from two aspects; that you wouldn't bet so self righteous as to take umbrage that your "humour" wasn't recognised for the cleverness it is, and to use such evident logical fallacies.
Now, a couple of things can happen here. My comment could be accepted as a fair rebuttal of your comment or ............................. By the way, I'm not offended, upset or on a soapbox. I'm trying to put points in plain language as unambiguously as possible or do you want me to do a "Plato"?
Happenstance, lucky? You don't seem to understand the concept of natural selection. Early tribes of greater intelligence wielding weapons would have wiped out their less-advanced counterparts, either by greater success in conflict or in hunting. People in cities evolved disease resistance and intelligence over physical abilities as these are what was valuable. Put a gorilla against the hog and you might have a more valid comparison.
Perhaps you don't realize what a resource hog these big brains we haul around are. They're there for a reason.
I could ask the same of you. If evolution isn't the story of the biologically lucky, then what is it? Did you, or your ancestors, DO something to acquire your biological traits? Or did they use what occurred through circumstance? I suggest you read "Germs, Guns and Steel"; it provides ample evidence to show some humans were luckier than others and as an aside, that racists are uneducated opportunists with no basis for their assertion of superiority.
rob g,
Okay, I can see that with that choice of wording you could see this as part of the unintelligent Creation theory.
Okay, I can see that with that choice of wording you could see this as part of the unintelligent Creation theory.
, now where's my Banjo?
An hour watching CSPAN or listening to Top 40 music will make you reconsider that description.
Sorry Rob, I wasn't jumping down your throat but, as you know full well, there are some weird beliefs out there pretending to be science.
Yes, scary times!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.