Anti Hunters...

Status
Not open for further replies.
All of us who enjoy hunting are all up against this exact same person, multiplied in the tens of thousands.

To deny or dismiss that this is exactly the type of mind that is trying to destroy hunting is to disarm ourselves against it.

Burying your head in the sand will only make it easier for them to chop it off.
Click to expand...

I do not bury my head in the sand, and do recognize that there is a strong anti-hunting faction that would love to shut us down.

What I meant, and did not communicate well (or at all), is that obvious lunatics like this one are not going to influence the argument for or against. It is slick, media savy folks who are able to come across as reasonable. This particular individual would have as much chance of gaining a convert as the guy on the corner ranting that "the end was coming".
 
scrap: racism is founded on the idea that a single person reflects an entire race of people and are all the same and/or inferior. Thusly, you're applying racist rhetoric towards anti-hunter activists.

I once dated a girl for 3 years who was a vegetarian (my vegetarianism has nothing to do with her) pre-law student who attended protests and demonstrations. When we'd hang out with her friends, debates would frequently spark up regarding gun control, hunting, animal rights and all that, and we would civilly debate, face to face, making points with one and other. The discussions were intellectual and fulfilling, but I also met that kind of anti-gun/anti-hunter type people that you're talking about.

Now, I want you to read this article and tell me how it makes you feel:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=women at risk&st=cse

because they're doing the same thing to us that you're doing to anti-hunters.

Edit: I would like to add that a friend of mine was actually arrest for being a domestic terrorist at a protest. Apparently, if you cross state lines to attend a protest that costs a company a certain amount of money due to loss of business, you're considered a domestic terrorist. This is a clear violation of the first amendment, which guarantee the right to peaceful protest, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It's interesting that you all fight so hard for the 2nd amendment and they all fight so hard for the 1st amendment, except they're the ones that are actually considered criminals and terrorists.

edit: also, scrap, sorry for misreading the part about the scientist, that one's my bad. I just misread it.
 
Last edited:
What I meant, and did not communicate well (or at all), is that obvious lunatics like this one are not going to influence the argument for or against. It is slick, media savy folks who are able to come across as reasonable. This particular individual would have as much chance of gaining a convert as the guy on the corner ranting that "the end was coming".
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. But nut jobs like this actually DO influence the rest of society.

I.E. the leader of PETA...it has been proven that she is as insane as this guy, and that her organization has funded the eco-terrorist group Animal Liberation Front, which firebombs research centers.

And yet her organization takes in millions of dollars and has tens of thousands of "normal" members who don't have a clue about how insane she is and how dangerous her organization is.

So it is very important that we don't dismiss the crackpots; they are exactly one of the most dangerous sect of the group both in terms of violence and in inflluence.
 
Soooo, that means that it's ok, and that they are not violent?
Click to expand...
No, I think that it shows that 'they', even the convicted ones, are not of one mind with the fellow you quoted:
...I don't care if all of you get cancer and die slow and horrible deaths and guess what, that is my right to feel like that...
Click to expand...

And yes, I am speculating, but do you have some references with hard numbers on these violent anti-hunting people out to do hunters harm?

Are there cases of these anti-hunters having murdered hunters?
 
scrap: racism is founded on the idea that a single person reflects an entire race of people and are all the same and/or inferior. Thusly, you're applying racist rhetoric towards anti-hunter activists.

No, it's not. He might be stereotyping anti-hunter activists but racism according to the OED is "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race."

I have no problem with someone who doesn't hunt for whatever reason. I do have a problem when someone tells me I shouldn't hunt.
 
Buzzcock, I hardly see how the OP provided a grounds for a serious discussion.

and 2damnold4this, that is the dictionary definition, but racism and prejudice in modern times in founded on the idea that a part reflects the whole. If I were to use scrap as an example of what everyone who hunts is like, then I'd say that everyone who hunts with very defensive and makes snap judgments about massive groups bases on a single interaction with a single person.
 
The difference between thoughts and feelings is evident here. Sounds like the youtube debate was made entirely of expression of two opposing extreme emotions, which spring up from within and if manifested without first being passed through a critical thinking process will almost always lead to ridiculous, extreme, unreasoned outcomes, like the positions staked out by the youtube cat fight participants.

Way too many refuse to think about things and instead go with their feelings, their emotions, unfettered by any objective reasoning or critical thinking process. Knee-jerk prejudices, bigoted perspectives, quick and dirty conclusions with little respect for the quality and quantity of truth and accuracy in them do none of us our our nation any good.

I don't like hunting but I don't care if you do; my perspectives are that I find no place in my sense of myself for killing animals for fun, but I won't interfere with your appreciation of such pleasures. Anti-hunting doesn't automatically mean anti-hunter, and to conclude that it does is not the product of a lot of objective thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top