We ought to ban hunting...

oldpbnoob 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. So thinning the population (via hunting)to lessen the chances of attacks against humans is useless? You see no value in this?   And for the record, I don't hunt. I don't have any moral objections against, it, I simply choose not to, it just isn't my bag.

No I see no value in this. If they can populate an area good for them.

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.  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.

^ So you've just decided to make yourself out to be an ass for the fun of it?

Sneaky how am I an ass?

I am the one that people are being an ass too lately, including you.

jmac3 wrote: Sneaky how am I an ass? I am the one that people are being an ass too lately, including you.

I get that we are very differant people with very very differant views, but I'm actually a pretty open minded guy, I can see where people are coming from most of the time. Yet, I have no earthly idea how you are coming up with most of what you've been saying. 

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.

oldpbnoob 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. So thinning the population (via hunting)to lessen the chances of attacks against humans is useless? You see no value in this?   And for the record, I don't hunt. I don't have any moral objections against, it, I simply choose not to, it just isn't my bag.

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

jmac3 wrote: Sneaky how am I an ass? I am the one that people are being an ass too lately, including you.

You're the one with an ass for a picture.


Edited by Rofl_Mao - 01 October 2009 at 4:50pm

jmac3 wrote: 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.

But what donation process other than hunting has positive environmental effects?

__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...

__sneaky__ wrote: 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?

What?...