Hunters Are Awesome

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Isnt that exactly what an analogy is? The justification is they are partcipating in a legal activity and dont need to justify anything to you or anyone. An activity that has been around since man has been able to stand erect and walk. And saying they do it for "laughs" is demeaning. Saying they are "murderers" is demeaning and patently absurd to the tenth degree. Again jamming your values down our throat but of course AS ALWAYS, you will do that and then post that you were not doing it. Do racing fans need to justify what they do because after all because animals sometimes die during this sport? Is fishing also murder? I trapped a mouse in my attic am I now a confessed murderer? Should the government ban hunting? If you say yes then you have wildly hypocritical views for such a conserative, less government UNLESS it is something You want more government for. Sadly typical of your ilk.

The analogy was that there are plenty of examples of things that are legal yet still totally wrong. If I give you an example of one of those things, it doesn't mean I'm saying that the thing is the exact same thing. It means I'm saying here is an example of another thing that is legal that is wrong (immoral).

You guys are the ones who are totally hypocritical. If there is an activity that you are ok with, then your justification for the activity being ok is that the activity is legal or it's been around for a long time. But if it's an activity that you're not ok with, then whether it's legal is irrelevant. Even if your views are correct and mine are wrong, your debating skills definitely need work. You can't justify something as being ok because it's legal or because it's been around for a long time, if you're not going to use that same reasoning for other activities that you disapprove of.

I guess we should never change laws. If something is legal and it's been around for a long time then I guess it's ok. Why would need to change it.

I never said that all hunting should be banned. I'm certainly not a fan of hunting and I can't imagine how anyone would get pleasure out of killing a beautiful animal. Despite that, I probably wouldn't advocate a total ban. But I think the laws should be much stricter and if someone wants to kill something there should have to be a very strong justification for it. If a person is going to eat it, then fine. But then there should be a strict limit on the numbers.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The analogy was that there are plenty of examples of things that are legal yet still totally wrong. If I give you an example of one of those things, it doesn't mean I'm saying that the thing is the exact same thing. It means I'm saying here is an example of another thing that is legal that is wrong (immoral).

You guys are the ones who are totally hypocritical. If there is an activity that you are ok with, then your justification for the activity being ok is that the activity is legal or it's been around for a long time. But if it's an activity that you're not ok with, then whether it's legal is irrelevant. Even if your views are correct and mine are wrong, your debating skills definitely need work. You can't justify something as being ok because it's legal or because it's been around for a long time, if you're not going to use that same reasoning for other activities that you disapprove of.

that simply isn't true. some people sport hunt. i don't. it's not my thing. i don't think it should be made illegal because i personally don't understand it. it's like marijuana. i would never use it, even if i wanted to, because it's illegal. however, if they made it legal (which i think they should) i still wouldn't use it, because i'm just not interested. but i think everyone should be free to decide for themselves. just like hunting. because it's legal, you still don't have to engage. if the wolf hunting causes a decline in numbers, they'll halt it again-but other hunting would continue.
and it's got nothing to do with debating skills. hell, romney 'won' a debate-it meant nothing because his ideas are still bad. besides, each activity must be judged on its own merits. and sometimes it is easiest to just say, hey, it's legal.
and you're the one who initially brought up legalities-that wolf hunting should be illegal, because you disapprove. but now you're rambling on about hypocrisy and legality. yeesh.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that simply isn't true. some people sport hunt. i don't. it's not my thing. i don't think it should be made illegal because i personally don't understand it. it's like marijuana. i would never use it, even if i wanted to, because it's illegal. however, if they made it legal (which i think they should) i still wouldn't use it, because i'm just not interested. but i think everyone should be free to decide for themselves. just like hunting. because it's legal, you still don't have to engage. if the wolf hunting causes a decline in numbers, they'll halt it again-but other hunting would continue.
and it's got nothing to do with debating skills. hell, romney 'won' a debate-it meant nothing because his ideas are still bad. besides, each activity must be judged on its own merits. and sometimes it is easiest to just say, hey, it's legal.
and you're the one who initially brought up legalities-that wolf hunting should be illegal, because you disapprove. but now you're rambling on about hypocrisy and legality. yeesh.

The reason I don't think you can compare marijuana use is because it's not hurting anyone if I use marijuana. If I smoke marijuana in the privacy of my own home, how is that hurting anyone? How does that affect you? It has no affect on you. But if I kill the most famous wolf in Yellowstone National Park, that affects a lot of people. Nobody will ever see that wolf again. I've taken something that's not mine and robbed every tourist and visitor of the joy of seeing that beautiful animal.

Can you not see the difference between an activity that affects other people as compared to an activity that doesn't? There used to be laws on the books in many states against certain sex acts. I believe oral sex was illegal in many states. That is obviously absurd because it is none of anyone's business what two people want to do with each other behind closed doors. On the other hand, if I want to cut down a big tree at the park, that is other people's business because other people may like that tree and they may not want that tree to disappear. I should not be able to cut down that tree and there should be a law against it. That is completely different from something I do behind closed doors that has no affect on anyone.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that simply isn't true. some people sport hunt. i don't. it's not my thing. i don't think it should be made illegal because i personally don't understand it. it's like marijuana. i would never use it, even if i wanted to, because it's illegal. however, if they made it legal (which i think they should) i still wouldn't use it, because i'm just not interested. but i think everyone should be free to decide for themselves. just like hunting. because it's legal, you still don't have to engage. if the wolf hunting causes a decline in numbers, they'll halt it again-but other hunting would continue.
and it's got nothing to do with debating skills. hell, romney 'won' a debate-it meant nothing because his ideas are still bad. besides, each activity must be judged on its own merits. and sometimes it is easiest to just say, hey, it's legal.
and you're the one who initially brought up legalities-that wolf hunting should be illegal, because you disapprove. but now you're rambling on about hypocrisy and legality. yeesh.

ouch!..that one hurts.. let's play fair now.