I've read Guns Germs and Steel, and your wording is changing the context of your argument. Yes, successful mutation is luck, I was understanding your position that luck, a random factor, was what drove the selection process.
And we evolved specifically into intelligence intensive, soft fleshbags with big energy sucking brains, as we were able to use weapons and could optimize for an environment in which natural weapons were a non-issue. People expending energy to maintain big muscles, in resource limited evolutionary times, were disadvantaged relative to their counterparts who used that energy for brains, who didn't need to fight with tooth and nail, because they used bows and arrows instead.
Ya know, your tirade doesn't sit well with me. If you don't like hunting, you're certainly entitled. If you don't think of it as a sport, that's fine too. I'm neither hunter nor vegan, I don't care for either, but I have no problem co-existing with both.
Hunting animals is something man has been doing for quite some time now, whether with rocks, spears, boomerangs, or rifles.
Glad you said rhetoric, so I don't have to.
Hunting animals is something man has been doing for quite some time now, whether with rocks, spears, boomerangs, or rifles.
Glad you said rhetoric, so I don't have to.
Yep, agreed. I mentioned the book only to illustrate that, even among humans, there were those who were lucky than others; specifically those who had the advantage of location and domestication of flora and fauna to develop civilisation. In Australia, the aboriginal people did not have that same fortune and are discriminated against just because they lived here before others came who had the advantage of more helpful circumstances.
I, on the other hand, am known for being overly sensitive.
I was simply being sincere. However, in plain language, your original post did offend me, and not just on behalf of the good people I know well who were your intended victims.
Free speech is a great weapon but you have to accept that return fire is a valid response.
What point could you have been trying to make that wouldn't involve forcing others to comply with your beliefs? I say that because they will never (ever) willingly give up hunting or firearms. So whom are you trying to convince of what, exactly? You can't possibly hope to win a debate about private firearm ownership. And you can't hope to win a debate about whether or not other people should be "allowed" to hunt.
And I thought that my humor was actually humorous. I couldn't resist, actually: You seemed obsessed with penis sizes and hunting. I thought "penis envy" and "hunting" and said "hunting envy". I thought it was a little bit clever and also thought that it might give you pause, which I believed was sorely needed.
gootee, I have no personal grievance with you but will press when bad logic is used. If you are too sensitive, why should your disposition be my problem?
Again, however, you use very personal language in another ad hominem (intended victims) and a passing strawman too. Return fire, if you want to use the emotive, is fine but not at the clouding, intentional or otherwise, of the points being made. I suggest you read my posts. Generally, I was asking questions rather than, as you falsely claim, "forcing others to comply with (my) beliefs". If the question was uncomfortable, as was its intention, that does not constitute "force", if, indeed, I could force someone to change their beliefs. Some people don't like questions being asked; Plato found that out.
I questioned whether killing something with a high speed projectile or a sharpened manufactured implement was "sport". The whole matter of private gun ownership is a particularly American phenomenon that others in the world have difficulty understanding. Exactly who are you defending yourself from?
I also don't recollect referring to penises; I was using the metaphor "nads" to refer to misplaced macho as a form of rhetoric. I am also amused that you feel the need to interject "to give me pause" for some reason that is more to do with your, admitted, sensitivity rather any real need felt by others. If others had a need, I assume they are grownup enough to say that for themselves. I might ask why you are forcing yourself into a situation for no need, other your perceived. to calm something down that doesn't need calming? In this post, you can either read my actual words or take umbrage when none is intended or contained within the words themselves.
Again, however, you use very personal language in another ad hominem (intended victims) and a passing strawman too. Return fire, if you want to use the emotive, is fine but not at the clouding, intentional or otherwise, of the points being made. I suggest you read my posts. Generally, I was asking questions rather than, as you falsely claim, "forcing others to comply with (my) beliefs". If the question was uncomfortable, as was its intention, that does not constitute "force", if, indeed, I could force someone to change their beliefs. Some people don't like questions being asked; Plato found that out.
I questioned whether killing something with a high speed projectile or a sharpened manufactured implement was "sport". The whole matter of private gun ownership is a particularly American phenomenon that others in the world have difficulty understanding. Exactly who are you defending yourself from?
I also don't recollect referring to penises; I was using the metaphor "nads" to refer to misplaced macho as a form of rhetoric. I am also amused that you feel the need to interject "to give me pause" for some reason that is more to do with your, admitted, sensitivity rather any real need felt by others. If others had a need, I assume they are grownup enough to say that for themselves. I might ask why you are forcing yourself into a situation for no need, other your perceived. to calm something down that doesn't need calming? In this post, you can either read my actual words or take umbrage when none is intended or contained within the words themselves.
Wow I didn't realize this thread had exploded. My points go to #42 & #45. Anyway, what questions are you asking? I had a similar situation in another thread here. All about gun sportsmanship. If "sport" is defined as a contest between two individuals or teams, then it is a sport. You may not agree, but is it really that important to you? Really? IMO pro wrestling should be given priority.
Y'all would really love the story aired on local TV news last week. Seems some are grabbing their assault rifles and hopping in helicopters to fly over and shoot wild hogs. It's a long way from the tree-knife approach.
Y'all would really love the story aired on local TV news last week. Seems some are grabbing their assault rifles and hopping in helicopters to fly over and shoot wild hogs. It's a long way from the tree-knife approach.
Can we keep the bickering down to a couple sentences per post so I can keep up.
Thanks.jeff
Can we keep the bickering down to a couple sentences per post so I can keep up.
jeff
Yeah, wee didunt av latin at my scool or nuffink.
Well, as someone once said, on Saturday Night Live, "There's no use in beating a dead horse, except, of course, for the sheer joy of it!".
..and you do this for Sport?
I've heard of this! Cat Juggling!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qbc2J0zZr8
Sickening!
Last edited:
Wow, you're really grasping at straws, now, and also backpedaling massively. I'm deducting nine points from your score and taking it as a complete win for me and all of the others.
OK, I was at-least-partially kidding, there.
Seriously, though, one good "answer" to many of your questions is, "It's really none of our business, is it?". (Just debating without any hope of changing the world would be pointless, wouldn't it? It might be fun. But is that the only reason you're pressing your questions? I doubt it. So the "answer" is likely valid.)
But I am still curious: In your mind, what is your agenda and what is its purpose?
(Toward "full disclosure": I have not read anything prior to the post after which I made the "hunting envy" jab.)
I had a co-worker who once found an injured deer along the road and put it in the back seat of his car to rescue it. He didn't seem at all aware of the extreme danger he put himself in. The only point being, it's really worth knowing what lies beyond the pavements of the city, or stay on the sidewalks. The unfortunate guy in the OP likely knew better, but either his machismo did cloud his thinking or he was too cheap to spend another shell. Tragic.
addendum: I've also been up north and seen the tourist shooting with a camera who walks up to get a closer picture of the moose cow and her calf. Then seen the deathly fear on their face as they hauled it back over the retaining wall on to the highway.
addendum: I've also been up north and seen the tourist shooting with a camera who walks up to get a closer picture of the moose cow and her calf. Then seen the deathly fear on their face as they hauled it back over the retaining wall on to the highway.
Last edited:
Wild animals can be dangerous.
Is this a round about way of saying we need to be in favour of hunting activities, culling animals, reduce their number in order to be safe?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.