|
|
|
|
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 7:01:08 AM | | It is hypocritical to say hunting is cruel and inhumane if you still eat meat . If you believe that eating meat is wrong then you have to stop eating meat altogether ,otherwise it just make you one huge hypocrite. You have no idea how inhumane and cruel slaughter houses are ,not to mention dirty add to that the animals are injected with and fed all sorts of unnatural crap . | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 7:06:26 AM |
If you believe that eating meat is wrong then you have to stop eating meat altogether ,otherwise it just make you one huge hypocrite.
eating meat is not wrong foolish one, it's the sickness of wanting to kill that is.
read my posts thoroughly before you attempt to put words in my mouth. better yet, just go eat a twinkie. you're pathetic! | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 7:11:24 AM | tomozzo,sterlize animals that are "overpopulated" and you call ME ( a hunter)cruel????Yeah "let's sterlize them and wipe them out for good so the hunters won't murder them. I hunt ,I eat meat,I like deer.I havrest 1 deer a year (if I can)You are not going to change that.Isn't America great. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 7:37:22 AM | Regardless of the flames that have transpired in this thread, it has actually been quite useful to me on a personal level. And for that I should thank many individuals. It has allowed me to more precisely narrow down what traits I value and don't value in others.
And has anyone failed to noticed the irony? This thread exists in the "Ask a Girl" subcategory, yet the responses are filled with dudes in camos and mesh beaters! Now, no one is suggesting that men can't participate in such a commentary, but it seems that there's something of an identity crisis going down before our very eyes.
And further to my original posting #107, only people who are really reaching for
justification of their actions would compare my horse ownership with abusing animals. At the end of the day, there is no risk that my horse will be shot (unless it's in a national forest, by a duck hunter, who is where he is not supposed to be, mistaking me for something else) or sent to a slaughterhouse. And BTW, we don't return domesticated animals to the wild either - there are laws against that where I come from.
Hockey Teams are not equally matched UOJ? They all have similar equipment, hockey sticks, and reasonably athletic men playing (or fighting?) against each other. We don't pit adult male hockey players against boys, women or children, so the analogy here that animals are outgunned by hunters in sheer power is still true.
And for the last friggin' time, we don't manage nature! How easy has it been to "manage" the Cali wildfires? Animal populations become decimated through such
causations as invasive species, habitat destruction, disease, hunting, and the inbreeding and resultant overpopulation as an associated result of hunting. After
many bucks are taken, the remaining ones will breed as many does as possible,
and the resulting inbreeding is a very bad thing! Anyway, choose your poison -
all the examples of the above are done at the hand of man. So where is the "management" that the hunters proclaim exists? Or do you try to maintain that
only city folk are responsible for urban sprawl? Take ownership of the problems that you cause!
And call it what it is - you do not "harvest" a living animal. You only serve to prove my point in my original posting #107 - you are looking for ways to divest yourself of any sentiment towards the suffering you cause, whether you buy pre-packaged meat products or go out and kill it for yourself. You are pre-packaging your behaviour to make yourself more socially acceptable. Makes no diff whether you make a well-placed shot in the heart or lungs or whether a veal calf takes the blow of a C02 cartridge shot to the brain. It's not all good.
Many of you seem to think you are doing the animals a favour by "harvesting" them
before they have the opportunity to die naturally. You don't realize that your
statements make a great case for the euthanasia of humans either. After all, why
should our elderly relatives linger and suffer the natural way? Weren't
some of you posting in another thread in 2005 about "putting Terri Schiavo down?"
I thought so! Good job! Nice continuation of the theme here too.
And so what if your hunter friends donated meat to a woman's shelter? Who do you
think donates the clothing, provides re-training, and other essentials of life? Is it you guys, with the wife beater shirts? Do you see many abused women in shelters wearing mesh wife beaters or camos? I bet you don't. That's because regular folk such as myself are providing them with these resources, either through charitable donations or direct donations of used clothing.
And hunting as a tradition? We have lots of "traditions," which also continue to include buying cheap clothes from Malaysia made by child labourers. Societies
evolve to exclude these activities because they become socially unacceptable
anachronisms. And for good reason.
And finally, as to comments made about my rather oblique comparison of hunters to
Neanderthals? So sorry, from this point onwards I shall use the more progressive
and advanced Homo-Erectus. Make of that analogy what you will guys.....I already
did long ago! LOL
Be well everyone....... | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 7:51:38 AM |
Posted by Tomozzo: "BECAUSE THEN YOU COULDN'T GO OUT IN THE WOODS AND BLOW THEIR HEADS OFF WITH PUNKIN BALLS. ... BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULDN'T GET THE SICK SATISFACTION OF SEEING THEIR INSIDES BLOWN OUT ALL OVER AND BRAG TO YOUR FRIENDS WHAT A MAN YOU ARE."
Where is all this 'insides blown out all over' and 'heads blown off with punkin balls' action taking place? Maybe on South Park or a Monty Python sketch, but I hunted for 25 years and have yet to witness all this explosive action. I'm from Pennsylvania originally (you know, that state next to Ohio, where you live), and unless hunting has changed drastically, we never really got around to blowing up the prey we wanted to eat. Rather counterproductive to the reason for being out there. I'm afraid we never equipped ourselves with detonating rounds of ammo. Sounds exciting where you live though. Boy, were we silly just using bows and arrows and using guns that could kill an animal with one tiny hole that barely bled externally. We could have had the exciting Ohio action of detonating our kills all over the landscape. I never knew. Sigh. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:06:19 AM | Tomozzo said
eating meat is not wrong foolish one, it's the sickness of wanting to kill that is.
I think this sums it all up. You are trying to shift your responsibility for the things done in your name. The meat on your table you WANT, but because you can't deal with your own responsibility for the killing of the animals you WANT you pay someone to do it for you. With it being wrapped up nicely for sale you can put it out of your mind that you paid someone to kill for you. Out of sight, out of mind. The thing is you in fact killed that animal due to what you wanted. You are "wanting to kill" everytime you eat meat.
Like I was trying to say before I plan to hunt a deer next year as I believe that it is important to take responsibility for the meat(killing) that is done for me. That way I can't hide behind the illusions of what is done in my name. Oh and I plan to enjoy the hunt too. | |
|
| |
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:13:01 AM |
Posted by CheshireCatalyst: "And has anyone failed to noticed the irony? This thread exists in the "Ask a Girl" subcategory, yet the responses are filled with dudes in camos and mesh beaters! Now, no one is suggesting that men can't participate in such a commentary, but it seems that there's something of an identity crisis going down before our very eyes."
Amazing! What's next? Cats and dogs living together? The horror of two sexes of the same species interchanging ideas in an open forum. The world as we know it has ended. Also, you may want to take a look over in the 'Ask a Guy' forum. Most threads get over run by women, so .... what's good for the goose...
Please don't forget when you make analogies like Homo-Erectus that there were two sexes, even then. Perhaps you recall that firsthand?
Also, we do have to manage nature. Why else are there National Parks, reserves, and conservation areas? We have altered the landscape to our whims and designs. Animals no longer have the ability to roam freely and have nature take its course reliably to repair the damage. We have to be responsible for our actions and take up the mantle of caretakers of the land we have so drastically changed. Management includes harvesting. One can let a whole area die naturally by starvation, or one can save many by harvesting a few. Which would you prefer? All dead, or many survive? You may be proud of your ethics, but you don't have much in the way of statistics or current reality to back up your position. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:15:04 AM | personally speaking for myself i have nothing wrong with a man who hunts. that being said i dont enjoy anyone speaking of how great it felt, how they did this or that. i also dont enjoy a dead animal where i can see it. sure i eat meat (not wild meat though) but i dont like to think of where it came from or i might not eat it. call me ignorant but thats the way i am. my meat comes from the grocery store, who grow it on the grocery store farm of meat.  | |
|
Who.Me
|
Joined: 8/26/2007
Msg: 210 | |
| |
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:20:50 AM | NV, you may want to re-read what you just quoted. I have no problem with men here, just the degree of testosterone......
I have no interest in the "Ask a Guy" section cuz I'm not a dude! MmmmmK?
You missed my homo-erectus analogy completely, so sorry!
You are the one without the stats or reality my friend. Without our "custodianship," animals will not simply wither away and die. If we cease to invade their habitat, they will flourish - according to nature's way and ideals - not ours. And your hunting buddy in a previous post already referred to "harvesting" by the more biologically accurate term of "killing." He beat you to the punch....... | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:20:52 AM | "the end result after all the money (guns, ammo, clothing, treestand, license, butchering, camp) and trouble for you go through is 100 pounds of meat at $25 a pound. why don't you DONATE this money to wildlife efforts to sterilize deer and other overpopulated animals.?"
Your idea to sterilize deer is rediculous. Another of your dogmatic views which shows how uninformed and ignorant you are. How we choose to spend out money isn't an issue because what we do helps with the habitat the deer use. Maybe you should get rid of your dirtbike and donate the money you use for what you enjoy to buy helmets and bikes for children who can't afford them.
"why don't you trail animals with cameras and take their picture out in the wild and frame it in your trophy room of photos?" Once again you show how much you don't understand. I have pictures of deer and other wild life on my walls.
"BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULDN'T GET THE SICK SATISFACTION OF SEEING THEIR INSIDES BLOWN OUT ALL OVER AND BRAG TO YOUR FRIENDS WHAT A MAN YOU ARE" Just another example of your ignorance. I prefer to hunt with a bow and only shoot when there is a great chance of good shot. There are no "INSIDES BLOWN OUT ALL OVER " This statement would be like a hunter saying "We should get rid of all country clubs and plant trees. These sick people hit a ball chase it down and repeat it until they put it in a little cup. Then they go to the club house and get drunk while they brag about the great score they had on their card." It would be just as ignorant as your statement!!!!
You should educate yourself before you take your dogmatic stand on this subject. Maybe "it's just a defect in your brain" and the fact "you need help" that prevents you from thinking that you don't know everything about hunting. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:34:50 AM | | Now they want to sterilize the animals.How would you like it if they sterilized you? Thats to much,LOL, I am just curious how people against hunting feel about abortion? | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:40:55 AM | wow!!! message 204, cheshire catalyst, brilliantly put!!
i take it this means that hunting is a turn off for you?
i have never before seen a thread go so far beyond and never return to the original poster's question.
and, by the way, where did the OP disappear to?? I suspect he has been the real cheshire cat watching with glee the cat fights erupt...and boy have we played perfectly into his plan.
by the way, could someone please tell me, truthfully, why hunters use the word 'harvesting' when they mean killing? i pointed that out way back in my original post and it's just been argued about with no clarification. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:42:53 AM | I think the softer names that people use to make make thinks in life more acceptable in their minds are pretty funny. Anyone with a brain they use will see the meaning anyways. That being said of course hunting is killing. We are the top predators and as their natural predators are not around so we do the job, and we enjoy it too sometimes. Oh and before it is suggested we bring back mountain lions and wolves think about when fluffy your dog turns into dinner, or people get killed while hiking.
I can't say I am any ones "hunting buddy" or in general a buddy to anyone here. I will make my own way in life with my own opinions. If someone else is on a similar path so be it. | |
|
| |
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:45:55 AM | if a man feels the need to do this, fine. i have more of a problem with slaughterhouses than i do with subsitence hunting.
however, i do NOT want to see what he killed. dead bodies have no appeal for me.
i don't eat hooved animals so he shouldn't expect me to cook it for him.
now if he shot a turkey and showed me how to prepare it, i'd go ahead and roast it (or whatever). as long as my cats could have some  | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 9:00:12 AM | | ahhhh- found the OP - he started another thread, this time on sex and dating.....guess he got bored with ending life and decided to move onto making it (giggle). | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 9:19:44 AM |
Posted by CheshireCatalyst: "You are the one without the stats or reality my friend. Without our "custodianship," animals will not simply wither away and die. If we cease to invade their habitat, they will flourish - according to nature's way and ideals - not ours."
Ok, prove your proposition. Not with your feelings and gut instincts of how nature responds, but with references to literature, studies, and surveys of the issue. I can cite many that support my stance with unbiased, unambiguously funded research findings. Let's see some of yours. If you want to maintain your position, please feel free to enlighten those of us who have wandered down the wrong path. I enjoy a learned discourse and eagerly await your presentation of facts.
Posted by CheshireCatalyst: "your hunting buddy in a previous post already referred to "harvesting" by the more biologically accurate term of "killing.""
There are ramifications to the words chosen. While killing is a subset of the conceptualization of harvesting, the use of the term harvesting is far more accurate in describing the rationale of the act. Some do indeed hunt just for the pleasure of the kill. There are hunting 'preserves' in several states (Florida, Texas, Wyoming, and several others) that specialize in trophy 'hunts'. This is not what I would even remotely call hunting from my perspective. It is wanton killing for no true purpose other than the 'glory' of the kill. I find it a disgusting practice.
I used to hunt and support the idea behind the activity. I have seen winter deer die offs first hand and the after effects. A whole herd, unable to find sufficient food for their needs, died because they were unable to move to a new area. Food drops were attempted but weather became an issue. The short of it is, they all perished. As a result, all top level predators either died from starvation or were forced out of the area into areas in conflict with human habitation. Same for many scavenging species. Studies of the situation estimate that it took over 16 years for the area to recover to the point of sustainability and balance on its own. Similar situations have arisen where limited harvesting (yes, harvesting) was allowed (meat and carcasses were utilized 100%) to knock back the population to a point where survival was not only possible, but occurred. The deer population in the area rebounded to it's former level within three years. Minimal losses amongst the other sections of the natural food chain. Without the harvesting, they would all have been dead. Now, which scenario is more palatable to your tastes? | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 9:26:13 AM |
there is no real reason to hunt other than to satisfy a sick desire to murder something. and then brag about it. YOU CANNOT GET AWAY FROM THAT ! there is no argument for it. none -z ero - zilch.
Oh please, you don't think eating is an important reason to hunt?
the end result after all the money (guns, ammo, clothing, treestand, license, butchering, camp) and trouble for you go through is 100 pounds of meat at $25 a pound. why don't you DONATE this money to wildlife efforts to sterilize deer and other overpopulated animals.?
I think you're full of it. You have no idea the real cost of hunting... and who the hell really needs a tree stand? Breakdown here for a moose would be
$46 dollars for a license per year.
$40 dollars for a firearms license for life.
$ 400 for a rifle (which can be borrowed/ shared and is a one-time expense)
$ 20 a box for ammo (if you're a good shot one box can last between 5-10 years)
$10 bucks for an hunting vest (lifetime)
$.20 a pound for butchering, if you can't do it yourself.
No camping fees, animals are available right outside the city.
Cost for gas, anywhere from $10-100 depending on how long it takes and where you go. More if you're a VERY bad shot or decide to go 14 hours from home for weeks on end.
My parents have spent $200 max on a moose for about 400 pounds of meat (when they didn't have time to butcher themselves), and a little more for caribou because you can't get as much meat out of it.
BTW, we have a moose population in our province (human pop. half a million), of about 100,000 with over half breeding every year. We have the biggest caribou herd in the world. Between 50-100 people are killed a year in moose-vehicle accidents, there's disease running rampant because of overpopulation (I've seen the effects first-hand), I've seen them dying on the side of the road because of injuries that have gotten infected... one even dropped dead from running for hours from a little lap dog (escapee from someone's car) that was yipping at it's heels.
Do you still think it's more "humane" to let them die this way than from a quick shot or two.... or even living on a farm where they're forced into cramped quarters and force fed to increase the meat?
Wow.
BTW, do you think those people who work at a slaughterhouse are also "defective in the brain"? | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 9:32:27 AM | How exactly is hunting wrong but eating meat is not ? How do you think the meat on your plate got there tomozzo ? Someone somewhere had to kill it .
By the way tomozzo your pitiful insult means nothing to me . Ooh he called me fat boo hoo . Like i haven't heard that one before you hypocrite. I would rather be fat then a hypocrite . At least i don't profess to believe something while all the while doing something different . Talk about pathetic .
Anyway when a thread starts to turn into childish name calling like" your fat","your ugly", "no one wants you" , " your stupid" etc... Something kids in elementary school would say then it's time for me to bow out and say goodbye. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 9:37:20 AM | references to literature, studies, and surveys of the issue....
I would suggest you start with one book in particular, which is a very good read. You will have to buy or steal it though, it doesn't come free as a result of scouring a lot of .edu websites, although plenty of those are available to anyone willing to look for them. This book encompasses a whole range of issues including nature conservancy (or the lack of it) and man's true effect on nature and environment, (not what we think it is) written in a post-apocalyptic style. It's "The World Without Us," by Alan Weisman. This is actually engrossing reading! I heartily recommend it for enlightenment purposes. Anyone else who is a fan of Distopian/Utopian fiction or non-fiction will also enjoy it......
I can cite many that support my stance with unbiased, unambiguously funded research findings..... But you did not. Perhaps, like me, you're short on time.
There are ramifications to the words chosen. I agree completely. And that's why we won't see you use those words here either. You're still trying to manipulate and manufacture acceptance. Noam Chomsky would be so proud! Great intestinal fortitude is involved with the admission that hunting, if done properly, involves actual killing and death.
Be well everyone...... | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 9:45:37 AM | I do have a serious question - many hunters here really believe that those of us who are basically against the EGO side of hunting (and thankfully, not many of you have admitted you get a thrill from the shooting itself, which is a great relief to me).....but you claim that those of us who don't hunt therefore should be vegetarians, vegans, etc.
now, due to my dietary requirements (honest), i do need to eat 'flesh' as they call it in macrobiotic circles...in other words, meat, fish, fowl....the heavy proteins.
but I know myself and only if I absolutely HAD to shoot an animal to survive to feed myself or my children/parents/loved ones/really anyone who needed it.....I really could not shoot the animal. And I could not witness another doing it.
This is not saying I am against hunting for the food....as I have said throughout my posts here.....I just could not do the actual shooting.
So, my point is the hunters here then insist I must be vegetarian or I'm a hypocrite if I eat supermarket fish/meat/poultry (eggs too). And I totally agree that supermarket flesh is the most tortured there is. It's totally beyond our worse nightmares.
But, my question is, if I have no choice because i know no hunters personally to help provide me with meat (and my impression is some hunters are a bit selfish it seems with their kills and tend to keep the meat for themselves or their families).....all I know is I've never been offered any...
So, SHOULD I STARVE BECAUSE I CAN'T SHOOT AND KILL AN ANIMAL TO EAT IT?? (sorry - not yelling, just trying to make the point of this post apparent)
whew! finally got the question out.
please see, everyone, it is an impossible argument. we all are right, really. and we all are wrong. if man had only kept to the original traditions of our ancestors, there would still be buffallo, for one, and we'd really be living off the land and respecting it and each other much more than we do now.
hunting these days is not the ancient tradition we had when we really were hunters and gatherers, as some have tried to claim here as well.
we all have our opinions....on everything. this one, as I said a few days ago, is a really emotive topic. why the op put it in the 'Ask a Girl' forums i don't know. For no one follows that rule here......but I think he did it to challenge the 'boys' to join in for how can a male hunter leave this topic to the 'girls' anyway? (that's a joke.)
I guess we all just have to do the best we can to try and see each others' views with open hearts. Doesn't mean we have to agree, but the cruelty of the disagreements and the constant egos' attitude of 'I'm right, which means you're wrong' is never going to fix the real problems on this planet. my vote is to really respect each other and everything that's here...and yes, that means the plants too. We've poisoned the land that the plants grow on and we're all slowly dying by eating poisoned food, drinking poisoned water, and breathing poisoned air.....but that's another whole topic for debate of course.
in terms of hunting and this thread - and apologize for caps one more time - not yelling - honest -
IT SEEMS IT'S OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, MALE AND FEMALE, SUPPORT HUNTING RESPONSIBLY FOR FOOD AND DO NOT RESPECT KILLING ANIMALS FOR SPORT.
so, yay! mostly there is agreement after all. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 10:00:55 AM | Posted by CheshireCatalyst: " But you did not. Perhaps, like me, you're short on time."
It was a simple request for facts. You want to convince those of us who are in error to your way of looking at the situation. Don't you? Then the burden of the discussion falls upon your shoulders. I don't care if you convert to my outlook on the matter at all. You however, apparently want us to stop killing animals for any reason. No matter what the intentions or outcome. You really should provide us with something more substantial to sway our flawed reasoning.
I have read the book you've cited and the ensuing discussions about it in Scientific American. It isn't germane to the discussion as it's premise is that humans aren't present. We are clearly here and have a strong impact both environmentally and ecologically. The book is an interesting hypothetical, but all speculative in nature. Tossing up straws and pleading time issues doesn't do much for your case.
Posted by CheshireCatalyst: "And we won't see you use those words here either. Great intestinal fortitude is involved with the admission that hunting, if done properly, involves actual killing and death."
What words might those be? I did state that killing was merely a subset of the concept of harvesting. One can most certainly kill something without it being considered under the umbrella of harvesting. Happens on the streets in every major metropolitan area every single day. There are also those who hunt and kill for reasons that are far from ethically inclined. The kangaroo situation in Australia is most certainly one of those. There are many others. I don't support those activities either.
I suppose I shouldn't have expected much. You seem to love tossing around pithy phrases, rash generalizations, and what I gather you feel are witty and sly slights. Those are about the same weight that should be given to your views. Fluff without substance is just that ... fluff. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 10:09:19 AM | Then the burden of the discussion falls upon your shoulders.... And now I'll pass that torch over to........? You?
The book doesn't presume humans aren't present - it presumes that humans suddenly ceased to exist. It's completely "germane" as it very logically illustrates what would happen if we were no longer around to manage the farm, the same one that apparently cannot exist without our intervention.
If you don't like my "witty and sly slights," you have the option to ignore them. Maybe you can follow your own advice? LOL
Be well everyone.......... | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
