We ought to ban hunting...

The actual problem is jmac3's poor communication skills:

The evidence:

Exhibit A:  The title of this thread as selected by FE

We ought to ban hunting. . .

Exhibit B:  jmac3's first post in the thread

jmac3 wrote: What a dumbass video. I agree though. Hunting is useless.

It is easy to see why, despite his later protests, everyone assumed jmac3 wanted to ban hunting.

To complicate matters, jmac3 has become so invested in his viewpoint that he ignored the points (with included citations) that were made about the positive effects of hunting in regards to feeding the poor and preserving the health of deer populations.  These points were dismissed not with counter-rebuttals based on cited evidence, but on the basis that they did not meet his personal definition of "useful."  Those of us grounded in reality realize that while neither benefit may be the primary purpose of hunting, both outcomes are indeed useful.  Despite his denials of being the "Anti-FE," becoming so wedded to a viewpoint that one is forced to redefine reality in order to continue supporting it in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence is a hallmark of those on the far right/left extremes of the political landscape.

As an off-topic note, if being useless was a reason to ban anything, paintball would probably be near the top of the "get rid of" list.

Edited by Mack - 01 October 2009 at 5:53pm

If you really think that deer herds don't need to be trimmed, you should come into central NJ sometime.

/stupid argument

jmac3 wrote: __sneaky__ wrote: Rofl_Mao wrote: I'm telling you, he doesn't care about human deaths. He only cares about the animals living. I didnt realize jmac was a member of PETA. I care about human deaths. I don't really care about animals dying. You have it backwards. Point is deer aren't running into the road to kill people. They are running into the road to cross the huge ass road put in the middle of their habitat. People are going into woods just to kill them. I am not a member of PETA. Reb, environmental benefits? Oh sorry killing animals to stop them from dying must be a benefit...

Does that even make sense to you?

DeTrevni wrote: Skillet42565 wrote: This is the dumbest argument I've read on here in a while, not gonna lie. This whole thread is facepalm.jpg. I just figured out what's happening. All the "pro-hunters" are trying to convince Jmac that hunting is "good," based on a morality issue. Jmac is arguing the semantics of the term "useless." No one knew what he meant, because he's really not good at getting to his points until 10 pages in, and by this time, he's too engaged to leave it be and is forced to fight his way out. Terrific. We have this "argument" blown out of proportion by both sides... Blah.

You too are mistaken. I'm not trying to say hunting is 'good' thats an argument all to its own. I'm merely arguing against the 'useless' claim which, all things considered....is pretty silly.

I don't see why this debate is getting as much flak as it is when there is so much dumber crap that comes up around here fraught with name calling and blatant stupidity. This one is for civil, and even has the makings of a legitimate discussion.

hater.

Rofl_Mao wrote: I'm telling you, he doesn't care about human deaths. He only cares about the animals living.

I didnt realize jmac was a member of PETA.

DeTrevni wrote: Skillet42565 wrote: This is the dumbest argument I've read on here in a while, not gonna lie. This whole thread is facepalm.jpg. I just figured out what's happening. All the "pro-hunters" are trying to convince Jmac that hunting is "good," based on a morality issue Which is dumb, because I am not even against hunting. Jmac is arguing the semantics of the term "useless." No one knew what he meant, because he's really not good at getting to his points until 10 pages in, Except they got my point and were just trying to make me agree with them  and by this time, he's too engaged to leave it be Pretty much.  and is forced to fight his way out. Terrific. We have this "argument" blown out of proportion by both sides... Blah.

Did I say they were more important than humans? No
Car accidents are possible. They are not the same as going out to kill a deer.

100+ tons of food? If people bought food and donated it, it would get the same effect fool. There is more than enough food around for everybody.

I am not even being socialist  like someone may say because of that last sentence. Just saying that it is possible to donate without shooting deer.

i lol'd at most of what jmac said.  

jmac3 wrote: Do we ever have arguments that aren't impractical and useless?

^^ Good point.  

Edited by Mack - 01 October 2009 at 5:28pm

Sneaky what are you talking about now? That makes no sense

and

Mack wrote: jmac3 wrote: Yes. I have no problems with alligators hunting back. Kill them if they attack you I don't care. Don't go looking for them. Same with elephants. Definition for useless: Having no practical use. If I understand this thread, you are not against hunting, you just believe it has no practical use. Exactly  If this is correct, then your posts are arguing about a practice that you really do not care whether it continues or not.  That seems kind of impractical and useless. Do we ever have arguments that aren't impractical and useless?