PDA

View Full Version : Mmmm...meat good



PetersCreek
2008-Aug-15, 01:02 AM
I'd read long ago that the infusion of meat into our ancestors' diet is thought to be responsible for increasing brain size. But now, it could be that cooking our meat may have led to increased intelligence (http://www.livescience.com/culture/080811-brain-evolution.html).

Take that you pesky vegans! If you'd had your way, we'd still be tree-dwellers!*


*Okay, okay...I don't really have anything against vegetarianism...just the fanatical vegans who want to convert the world and froth at the mouth against us meat murderers. So I poke fun...a lot.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 01:13 AM
*Okay, okay...I don't really have anything against vegetarianism...just the fanatical vegans who want to convert the world and froth at the mouth against us meat murderers. So I poke fun...a lot.

At least animals have the chance to defend themselves.

Vegetarians attack innocent and harmless plants, murdering them without a sense of shame when they couldn't even flee or fight back...

Abbadon_2008
2008-Aug-15, 02:22 AM
Omnivores rule! Herbivores GET ruled!

Chuck
2008-Aug-15, 02:32 AM
We have a deal with our livestock. We feed them when they're young, they feed us when they're old.

Ronald Brak
2008-Aug-15, 02:42 AM
This is a link to a PDF, it's not huge, but be warned.

http://www.control.com.au/bi2007/2810Brook.pdf

The article is about how Australian cattle and sheep contribute to the greenhouse effect, so vegetarians, or at least people who avoid beef and lamb are doing us all a favour.

If you want to help, eat kangaroos. Their meat is very healthy and their digestion doesn't produce methane. Increased demand will encourage Australian farmers to switch from sheep and cattle to maximising the number of roos on their land.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 03:07 AM
The article is about how Australian cattle and sheep contribute to the greenhouse effect, so vegetarians, or at least people who avoid beef and lamb are doing us all a favour.


Not if the vegans fart as much as the cows.

CodeSlinger
2008-Aug-15, 03:09 AM
I don't know why, but broccoli and cauliflower make me fart more than any other foods.

Kaptain K
2008-Aug-15, 03:31 AM
Not if the vegans fart as much as the cows.

They do! At least! :whistle:

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 03:43 AM
ummm
Ok
Back On Topic...!!!


Sorry... my fault.

nauthiz
2008-Aug-15, 05:18 AM
Meat might have been great for our ancestors, but then I imagine there's a good chance we also have ancestors who subsisted entirely on dead trees. In the here and now, though, the science still seems to point toward vegetarians living longer, healthier lives (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806870?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum). And vegetarians may have more well-functioning brains (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17175567?ordinalpos=20&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), too. ;)

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 05:38 AM
Meat might have been great for our ancestors, but then I imagine there's a good chance we also have ancestors who subsisted entirely on dead trees. In the here and now, though, the science still seems to point toward vegetarians living longer, healthier lives (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806870?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum). And vegetarians may have more well-functioning brains (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17175567?ordinalpos=20&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), too. ;)

whatever.


redmeatwecravesustinenceFOOD!*



*(reference to Twister)

goatboy
2008-Aug-15, 06:14 AM
In 50 years we'll be growing our steaks in labs. Since this meat didn't come from an animal, technically it'd be a vegetarian steak Heck, it'd probably be Halal and Kosher too.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 06:22 AM
In 50 years we'll be growing our steaks in labs. Since this meat didn't come from an animal, technically it'd be a vegetarian steak Heck, it'd probably be Halal and Kosher too.

I prefer to hunt mine down.

goatboy
2008-Aug-15, 06:32 AM
I prefer to hunt mine down.

Vat grown steaks would still need to exercise to stimulate the muscle fiber, otherwise you'd have something like protein applesauce. Perhaps a steak, studded with electrodes, quivering with muscle toning pulses of electricity could be "captured" using traditional hunting methods?

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 06:35 AM
Vat grown steaks would still need to exercise to stimulate the muscle fiber, otherwise you'd have something like protein applesauce. Perhaps a steak, studded with electrodes, quivering with muscle toning pulses of electricity could be "captured" using traditional hunting methods?

Nope.

Must Hunt.

Carnivorous Predator.

mfumbesi
2008-Aug-15, 11:03 AM
Neverfly it is hard to please you.
C'mon you can still be the designated "lab hunter".

Meat over the barbecue (braai) is what pleases this omnivore.
Oh I know it is probably not good for me, its probably carcinogenic and all the fat will do me in before my 100th birthday but the taste......

Ronald Brak
2008-Aug-15, 11:17 AM
Humans certainly have a shorter and less robust digestive system than chimps. And our jaws are mega puny in comparison.

mahesh
2008-Aug-15, 11:56 AM
I'd read long ago that the infusion of meat into our ancestors' diet is thought to be responsible for increasing brain size. But now, it could be that cooking our meat may have led to increased intelligence (http://www.livescience.com/culture/080811-brain-evolution.html).

Take that you pesky vegans! If you'd had your way, we'd still be tree-dwellers!*


*Okay, okay...I don't really have anything against vegetarianism...just the fanatical vegans who want to convert the world and froth at the mouth against us meat murderers. So I poke fun...a lot.


I don't know how many Jains, there are in the world, they are all strict vegetarians. And some of the kindest people I've come across. Their insight of life is different from yours and mine. Check out Jainism, Brett/PetersCreek.

I know Alaska would be a difficult place for a vegetarian / vegan to live / survive in, but i assure you, there is nothing 'pesky' about them.

Human evolution! One adapts to one's environment and the fittest ... etc. etc.


At least animals have the chance to defend themselves.

Vegetarians attack innocent and harmless plants, murdering them without a sense of shame when they couldn't even flee or fight back... ...my lites...

how, pray, do the animals have a chance to defend themselves?

a homo sapien, shooting off a gun from a distance? where's the equation?

If a human hunter was to hunt an animal, unarmed...i'd rather not go here, right now...

i'll be back shortly....

edit: i'm gonna continue later tonight

Larry Jacks
2008-Aug-15, 12:08 PM
Omnivores rule! Herbivores GET ruled!

There was a line from a famous old sci-fi book (perhaps Larry Niven's "Ringworld") that goes, "How much brains does it take to sneek up on a plant?"

HenrikOlsen
2008-Aug-15, 03:12 PM
I don't know how many Jains, there are in the world, they are all strict vegetarians. And some of the kindest people I've come across. Their insight of life is different from yours and mine. Check out Jainism, Brett/PetersCreek.
My underline.

Jains are definitely not the fanatical vegans PetersCreek was talking about.

Jason
2008-Aug-15, 03:16 PM
If God didn't want us to eat cows He wouldn't have made them taste like steak.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 03:34 PM
If God didn't want us to eat cows He wouldn't have made them taste like steak.

And cover them in meat!


I'm now reminded of the 80's He-Man and the Masters of the Universe movie (with live actors):
Teela: Why did they put the food on these little white sticks?
Duncan: Those are rib bones.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-15, 05:14 PM
I know Alaska would be a difficult place for a vegetarian / vegan to live / survive in, but i assure you, there is nothing 'pesky' about them.

Let me assure you, vegan zealots who wish to impose their lifestyle on others are most definitely pesky to me. Vegans who presumptuously interrupt my meal to tell me how bad it is for me are most definitely pesky to me. Vegans who pretentiously claim a position of superiority from which they pass judgement on my moral character because I eat meat are most definitely pesky me...to say the least.

So, I poke fun at them...because it's not legal to poke at them with a sharpened stick.

...and one who tries to convince me that the above isn't pesky...that it isn't, irritating, annoying, or bothersome...is working on becoming pesky himself. Now where'd I put that stick? ;)

Lianachan
2008-Aug-15, 05:19 PM
Eat a cow, eat a cow, 'cause it's good for you,
Eat a cow, eat a cow, it's the thing that goes......"Mooooo"

Sums it up nicely.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-15, 05:32 PM
how, pray, do the animals have a chance to defend themselves?

a homo sapien, shooting off a gun from a distance? where's the equation?

Here we go again with this old saw.

Have you hunted...ever? Shooting a gun from a distance is no guarantee that a hunter will be successful. If it were otherwise, pretty much every hunter would take their quarry, except for the poor marksmen. However, such is not the case. Animals have a variety of defenses that allow them to avoid human predation on a regular basis: exceptional eyesight, hearing, smell, speed, camoflage, terrain, etc. Hunters have to develop skills other than marksmanship. They have to understand their quarry and get close enough to take that shot. Oh, and that distance you were talking about...that distance may be measured in dozens of yards/meters, depending on the game, the terrain, and the weapon.


If a human hunter was to hunt an animal, unarmed...

This is a ludicrous proposition. We humans are evolved to survive by use of our brains and our tools. We don't have claws or fangs, great size, acute noses, or lightning speed. If you wouldn't expect a lion to give up tooth and claw in the hunt, it's mind-numbingly inane to expect a human to do the same thing.

nauthiz
2008-Aug-15, 06:19 PM
Vat grown steaks would still need to exercise to stimulate the muscle fiber, otherwise you'd have something like protein applesauce.
Folks who are growing in vitro meat don't seem to be complaining of that problem. The big texture hurdle is figuring out how to grow muscle tissue along with the matrix of connective tissue that gives it the kind of texture that people like, so right now it's not possible to produce steaks, only ground meat.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Aug-15, 06:35 PM
On the other hand, expecting a human to run an animal tired in the sun so it can be brained with a rock would make sense:)

mike alexander
2008-Aug-15, 07:49 PM
If you enjoy hunting and don't do it with a cruel frame of mind it's no different than Charlotte in her web (bloodthirsty little booger, she was). Just don't hunt me, please.

Hunting as sport or pastime will get harder and harder as the human polulation spreads over enough area to reduce the interhuman distance to less than the mean free path of a bullet anyhow. Removing other predators will result in what I have now, more deer (rats with antlers, as my son says) than I know what to do with.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 09:05 PM
If you enjoy hunting and don't do it with a cruel frame of mind it's no different than Charlotte in her web (bloodthirsty little booger, she was). Just don't hunt me, please.

Hunting as sport or pastime will get harder and harder as the human polulation spreads over enough area to reduce the interhuman distance to less than the mean free path of a bullet anyhow. Removing other predators will result in what I have now, more deer (rats with antlers, as my son says) than I know what to do with.

Don't remind me. I really try very hard not to think too far into the future...http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/46.gif

mugaliens
2008-Aug-15, 09:56 PM
Have you hunted...ever?

Yep.


Hunters have to develop skills other than marksmanship. They have to understand their quarry and get close enough to take that shot. Oh, and that distance you were talking about...that distance may be measured in dozens of yards/meters, depending on the game, the terrain, and the weapon.

On several occasions I've gotten close enough to bean them with a rock. To me, that's the thrill of hunting - getting close enough to have taken them with much more primative means, rather than dropping them at 300 yrds with a high-powered rifle.


We humans are evolved to survive by use of our brains and our tools. We don't have claws or fangs, great size, acute noses, or lightning speed. If you wouldn't expect a lion to give up tooth and claw in the hunt, it's mind-numbingly inane to expect a human to do the same thing.

Agreed. My teeth and fangs are somewhat gray and weigh about 2-1/2 pounds. I keep 'em right behind my eyes.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-15, 10:17 PM
The vast majority of the hunting I've done is without firearms actually.

But it is not out of any kind of anti-firearm mentality on my part.
I agree with PetersCreek.

mike alexander
2008-Aug-15, 11:51 PM
I think we denegrate our species too much. Compared to most animals humans are bigger and stronger, and can survive on a diet that would kill anything else but a rat. In terms of general availability moose are much more rare than squirrel (Da, Natasha!). Everybody seems to think in terms of big game.

I'm reminded of the aboriginal peoples of Australia, who not only survived but thrived in places the cheap European imports nearly starved.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-16, 01:00 AM
I think we denegrate our species too much. Compared to most animals humans are bigger and stronger, and can survive on a diet that would kill anything else but a rat. In terms of general availability moose are much more rare than squirrel (Da, Natasha!). Everybody seems to think in terms of big game.

I'm reminded of the aboriginal peoples of Australia, who not only survived but thrived in places the cheap European imports nearly starved.

I hope my remarks didn't read like denigration. I was just trying to draw a comparison between us and other apex predators to demonstrate that while their physical prowess generally exceeds ours, we more than make up for it with our naturally-acquired intelligence and aptitude for tool use. I was in no way suggesting that humans are frail.

Donnie B.
2008-Aug-16, 02:10 PM
A propos of nothing, it was recently discovered that certain other primates will, when given the choice, choose cooked meat over raw (even though they have no evolutionary history of a cooked diet).

Chuck
2008-Aug-16, 03:38 PM
Here we go again with this old saw.

Have you hunted...ever? Shooting a gun from a distance is no guarantee that a hunter will be successful. If it were otherwise, pretty much every hunter would take their quarry, except for the poor marksmen. However, such is not the case. Animals have a variety of defenses that allow them to avoid human predation on a regular basis: exceptional eyesight, hearing, smell, speed, camoflage, terrain, etc. Hunters have to develop skills other than marksmanship. They have to understand their quarry and get close enough to take that shot. Oh, and that distance you were talking about...that distance may be measured in dozens of yards/meters, depending on the game, the terrain, and the weapon.



This is a ludicrous proposition. We humans are evolved to survive by use of our brains and our tools. We don't have claws or fangs, great size, acute noses, or lightning speed. If you wouldn't expect a lion to give up tooth and claw in the hunt, it's mind-numbingly inane to expect a human to do the same thing.
If hunting with weapons is using our brains to offset the prey's physical superiority then why not use our brains even more effectively and keep the prey penned up so we can kill it when we please? In fact, why not use even more brain power by paying someone else to do it? When I buy a steak at the supermarket I'm showing off my extreme skill as a hunter.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-16, 04:57 PM
If hunting with weapons is using our brains to offset the prey's physical superiority then why not use our brains even more effectively and keep the prey penned up so we can kill it when we please? In fact, why not use even more brain power by paying someone else to do it? When I buy a steak at the supermarket I'm showing off my extreme skill as a hunter.

I admit that I'm not too sure if you're agreeing with me, making an argument against hunting altogether, or if you're responding to an argument that I wasn't making. But of course, I agree that the domestication of livestock and farming are key adaptations. My argument was in opposition to the notion that humans should forego their adaptations in order to satisfy some fantasy ideal of "fairness" to the poor, "helpless" animals.

Chuck
2008-Aug-16, 05:47 PM
If you use a manufactured gun or bow or spear to hunt then you're using your brain to overcome the animal by using the ingenuity and labor of others. From there it's just a short step to paying others to kill the animal for you. Neither seems really sporting.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-16, 09:10 PM
If you use a manufactured gun or bow or spear to hunt then you're using your brain to overcome the animal by using the ingenuity and labor of others.

My argument was for intelligence and tool use and it was applied to humans collectively. Tool manufacture is only a part of the process and that's not where ingenuity and labor ends for the hunt. Far from it.


From there it's just a short step to paying others to kill the animal for you.

I don't agree that's such a small step. It's the point at which a pretty substantial responsiblity changes hands. Try taking that step in reverse. That is, make the transition from meat purchaser to meat hunter. You'll invest far more money, time, labor, and intellect into the process than just buying a gun manufactured "using the ingenuity and labor of others". They don't come with a certificate stating, "Guaranteed to put food on the table." ;)


Neither seems really sporting.

I guess that very much depends on your definitition of "sporting". Must the hunter manufacture his weapon of choice to sastisfy your definition? Must she also mine the ore, smelt it, and forge the metal? Do we really need to reinvent the wheel? :whistle: I'm still not getting your point.

Chuck
2008-Aug-16, 10:05 PM
The hunter gets to decide how much chance his prey will have. Someone who fails with his current equipment can always get something better until he starts to succeed. I just skip to the end and use all of society as a weapon which has always succeeded.

It's not sporting when only one of the competitors gets to decide what's sporting and the other takes nearly all of the risk. The hunter might choose equipment that he feels makes it sporting but the fact that it's his choice makes calling it sporting highly questionable. Also, the hunter gets as many retries as he likes. The prey gets only one failure. That hardly makes it fair. I wouldn't care to compete with someone at anything in which one of the rules is that we play until he wins.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-16, 10:31 PM
Someone who fails with his current equipment can always get something better until he starts to succeed.

There you go again, concentrating all of the prowess in the weapon. It just doesn't work that way. Failure is seldom the weapon's fault and a newer, better weapon is seldom the solution. Hunting requires more skill than merely putting a round on target.


It's not sporting when only one of the competitors gets to decide what's sporting and the other takes nearly all of the risk.

Sure, we get to decide how sharp or long our "claws" are but we don't get to make all the "sporting" decisions. We still have to pursue our prey where they have the home field advantage, an evironment that their senses and other physical attributes are adapted for. If things were really as lopsided as you suggest, many more hunters would be much more successful than currently are.


The prey gets only one failure. That hardly makes it fair.

That's true for any prey, anwhere. That's life. Did someone lead you to believe that it's fair?

mugaliens
2008-Aug-16, 11:22 PM
I was just trying to draw a comparison between us and other apex predators to demonstrate that while their physical prowess generally exceeds ours, we more than make up for it with our naturally-acquired intelligence and aptitude for tool use. I was in no way suggesting that humans are frail.

I can't recall the title, but there's a movie about whalers (sailing ship genre) who literally missed the boat. They're taken in by Inuit with the usual storyline.

In one scene, a polar bear comes along. This was filmed on location, in a small Inuit village.

Now, one would think that the roughly 1,200 lb polar bear, twice as large as lions or tigers, and far more powerful, would be the hunter and the Inuit would be the hunted.

Not so, as was captured on film when the village elder, all 5 ft nothing of him, bound his knife to a pole and walked up to the polar bear, which did what polar bears tend to do when confronted (nothing confronts a polar bear).

It stood up.

And the elder promptly stabbed him in his heart.

It took one more stab, but the whole encounter was over in about half a minute, while at any time the polar bear could have charged and demolished the man with only minor injuries.

Now, polar bear is a protected species, so I'm not advocating trying such a hunting tactic. Still, I was amazed to see how great a force multiplier is man's knowledge over the environment.

As an earlier poster mentioned, the Australian aborigines had knowledge, which is why they thrived in areas where the imports starved.

Chuck
2008-Aug-16, 11:24 PM
No one lead me to believe that it's fair. In fact, it's obviously so unfair that it's not sporting. It might make the hunter feel big to kill something but it's not much of an accomplishment if he gets to try until he succeeds.

goatboy
2008-Aug-16, 11:53 PM
I'd like to see that Inuit attack a T-Rex with a knife fastened to a stick.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-17, 12:08 AM
It might make the hunter feel big to kill something but it's not much of an accomplishment if he gets to try until he succeeds.

What's unfair about trying until you succeed? Lions don't always catch their prey on the first try and they rarely die in the attempt. Katmai grizzlies don't catch every salmon but sometimes one will jump right into its maw...which hardly seems "fair" to the fish minding her own business, on her way to the spawning ground. But let's look at it this way...if these circumstances are the natural order of things, aren't those the "rules"? Playing by the rules sounds fair to me.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 12:21 AM
If you're hunting for food and your tribe will starve if you fail then you should keep trying. If you're hunting for sport and there's no chance of failure then it's not much of a sport. If you fail today then you buy some food at the supermarket to feed your family and hunt again the next day. You're going to succeed eventually. What's the point of a sport if you must eventually win?

Jason
2008-Aug-17, 01:35 AM
What's the point of rock-climbing if you eventually must get to the top?

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 01:40 AM
What's the point of rock-climbing if you eventually must get to the top?

The Climb!:D

Jason
2008-Aug-17, 01:51 AM
Exactly. Same thing with hunting.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 01:58 AM
Exactly. Same thing with hunting.

Yeah, in this argument I can see where both Chuck and PetersCreek are coming from.
I am not in favor of slaughterhouses, myself. I believe that folks who want meat should have to hunt for it.
But... no one is going to go along with that idea, in spite of the fact it's over-all better for us.

My problem with PetersCreek's rebuttal to Chuck is that having the ability does not equate to using that ability.

For example, the United States could up and Nuke any nation that doesn't agree with it.
All other nations could be conquered and ruled by fear.
Having the ability does not justify using it. Even if our brain allowed the possibility.

There are limits to which we can use our smarts, after which passed can become self destructive.
I find using slaughterhouses and processed meat to be that way.

Sometimes a clear advantage is a not as clear disadvantage.

Whirlpool
2008-Aug-17, 02:25 AM
Exactly. Same thing with hunting.

That IF it is done for recreation or hobby ,to give self-fulfillment and boost ego.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 02:27 AM
That if it is done for recreation or hobby to give self-fulfillment and boost ego.

I can't stand wasteful hunting.
Hunting solely for sport and wasting the life that was taken by not consuming or using the materials gained deserves no respect from me.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 02:41 AM
Anyone wanting to show off tracking and shooting ability could track an animal and take a picture of it. Inflicting pain and death seems kind of harsh when it's not necessary, even if it's just on an animal.

Treatment of livestock is another problem. Better treatment of livestock would make meat more expensive and won't be done unless a lot of people want change. It probably won't be happening anytime soon.

Whirlpool
2008-Aug-17, 02:44 AM
I can't stand wasteful hunting.
Hunting solely for sport and wasting the life that was taken by not consuming or using the materials gained deserves no respect from me.

Usually it is consumed , by the animals too .

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 02:52 AM
Anyone wanting to show off tracking and shooting ability could track an animal and take a picture of it. Inflicting pain and death seems kind of harsh when it's not necessary, even if it's just on an animal.
Can't devour a picture.

Can only look at at it and drool.


Treatment of livestock is another problem. Better treatment of livestock would make meat more expensive and won't be done unless a lot of people want change. It probably won't be happening anytime soon.

I did voice an opinion earlier that may relate to this...:whistle:

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 03:14 AM
Although hunters will eat their kills, they're really hunting for sport. They don't have to hunt to acquire meat. They mostly just want to shoot something.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 03:31 AM
Although hunters will eat their kills, they're really hunting for sport. They don't have to hunt to acquire meat. They mostly just want to shoot something.

So what?
It's our nature.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 03:36 AM
Yes, and it's a thief's nature to steal and a rapists nature to rape. Does that make those activities admirable too?

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 03:39 AM
Yes, and it's a thief's nature to steal and a rapists nature to rape. Does that make those activities admirable too?

Apples to oranges.

Rapists, thieves and Vegans are not the norm.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 03:40 AM
It's a soldiers duty to kill.

Are you anti- military Chuck?

How does it feel- to murder BILLIONS of Innocent little bacteria just because you're so selfish you care about cleanliness and your own health?

In order to eat without killing an animal- you must kill a plant.

Chuck, if you want to preserve life ONLY for the sake of not killing- then you had best cease living. It is the only way to ensure that you stop killing.

LaurelHS
2008-Aug-17, 03:41 AM
At least animals have the chance to defend themselves.

Vegetarians attack innocent and harmless plants, murdering them without a sense of shame when they couldn't even flee or fight back...

As a Canadian, I'm reminded of the Arrogant Worms . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM)

Whirlpool
2008-Aug-17, 03:49 AM
As a Canadian, I'm reminded of the Arrogant Worms . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM)

And I'm reminded of the ....


Fruitarian.


:doh:

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 03:58 AM
People kill people in self defense. Soldiers kill to defend their countries. Some people kill animals for food. These are all people trying to live.

Psychopaths inflict damage on other people for fun. Hunters inflict painful wounds on animals for fun. See the differences and similarities?

Cookie
2008-Aug-17, 04:26 AM
My dad enjoys hunting.
That does not make him a psychopath.
He's the kindest, strongest, most dependable man I know.

Chuck, have ya seen the TV series called Jericho?
Ya ought to watch every episode.
It might give ya some prospective on what it really means to be human.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-17, 04:27 AM
Why do you persist in these mischaracterizations? Are you really calling me a psychopath?

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 04:34 AM
I didn't call anyone a psychopath. I just pointed out the similarity.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-17, 04:37 AM
By mischaracterizing hunters.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 04:41 AM
The similarity is there. I didn't make it up. They enjoy an activity that inflicts pain.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-17, 05:03 AM
People kill people in self defense. Soldiers kill to defend their countries. Some people kill animals for food. These are all people trying to live.

Psychopaths inflict damage on other people for fun. Hunters inflict painful wounds on animals for fun. See the differences and similarities?

Okay, call me dense but I finally get it. Hang on to your false stereotypes if you must.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 05:15 AM
Does hunting inflict pain? Yes.
Do hunters enjoy hunting? Yes.

No stereotypes needed.

Tobin Dax
2008-Aug-17, 05:26 AM
Does hunting inflict pain? Yes.
Do hunters enjoy hunting? Yes.

No stereotypes needed.
Do hunters eat what they kill? Yes.
Therefore, people who eat what they kill are psychopaths.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 05:39 AM
That's your conclusion, not mine.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 11:43 AM
That's your conclusion, not mine.

Your conclusion is based on absolute and total ignorance.
Although I can see how you might reach it, you clearly have never hunted and are in denial about your ancestry.


No sane person enjoys killing or wounding... That I can agree with.

The similarity that you are trying to tie in does not necessarily exist. I have been hunting with many others and I have never gone hunting with anyone that psychotically enjoyed or took pleasure from killing or causing harm.

An animal that is killed during the hunt is to be respected and an honorable hunter goes to great lengths to ensure the animal is not made to suffer, oftentimes effort is made to ensure it's so quick that they don't even have time to feel pain.
That is probably the single most important part of hunting.
It's not just for a moral reason either.
Meat tainted with adrenaline isn't as tasty.

If you go with hunters and one Messes Up and causes an animal undue suffering, you will be hanging out with a pretty bummed out hunter after that.
Believe, me, I would Know.

Delvo
2008-Aug-17, 01:09 PM
Do hunters eat what they kill? Yes.
Therefore, people who eat what they kill are psychopaths.The differences is that eating isn't the reason why hunters in the modern Occident hunt. "Fun" is.

The real problem with the analogy with psychopaths is that, although both are killing (or maiming/torturing, if not entirely successful at killing) for fun, doing so to fellow humans has not been an evolutionarily favored trait, and doing so to other animals has, so enjoying the latter is more normal and natural than enoying the former. It is expected for members of a species to feel motivated to do things which increase their own survival ability and not to do things which decrease it.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-17, 01:27 PM
People kill people in self defense. Soldiers kill to defend their countries. Some people kill animals for food. These are all people trying to live.

Psychopaths inflict damage on other people for fun. Hunters inflict painful wounds on animals for fun.

Ok, you lost me there, as you said "some people kill animals for food," which implies the term "hunter," as in the anthropological use of the term, "hunter-gatherer," particularly applied to people who kill animals for food, not sport.

These hunters are "people trying to live," as per your definition.


See the differences and similarities?

No, and I take particular exception to your statement, "Hunters inflict painful wounds on animals for fun."

First, it's contrary to your first two statements, "Some people kill animals for food" and "These are all people trying to live." That is the very definition of a "hunter."

Second, I know of no hunter (and I know many) that doesn't use the animal for food (either himself, giving it away, or selling it to a local butcher). Thus, hunting also falls into your first two statements.

Your gross and flagrant mischaracterization of "inflicting painful wounds on animals for fun" merely alerts myself, all other hunters, and a great many non-hunters who support hunting that you exceedingly unfamiliar with the practice of hunting.

In short, while you may think you know what hunting is all about, it's painfully apparent to us hunters that you do not.

Therefore, I strongly encourage you to temper what you've heard from the anti-hunting crowd with experience, best gained by (surprise!) going hunting.

I know of no better way to eradicate the misconceptions behind your inflamatory comment than a healthy dose of reality.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-17, 01:40 PM
The differences is that eating isn't the reason why hunters in the modern Occident hunt. "Fun" is.

However, the anti-hunting nuts inexorably, and inexcusably fail to separate the "fun" of hunting, which is being outdoors, the excitment of the hunt, the skill required to stalk one's pray, the marksmanship involved, the pitting of man against nature, etc., with the final act of killing one's prey.

And that, my friends, is not the "fun" of hunting. That's a somber, sobering moment for all hunters.

Nevertheless, and personally, I'd rather dispatch a deer by bullet than have him waste away in the agony of starvation (rare) or suffer a much more prolonged, violent death at the hands (er, teeth and claws) of a four-legged predator. And it's a very well established fact that deer, left unchecked by man, will do one of two things:

1. Expand their numbers to the point of starvation.

2. In their near-starvation, become easy prey for predators.

I ask you which of the three things would you prefer for Bambi's demise?

1. Die of starvation (because dying of old age is exceedingly rare in the animal kingdom, particular when you're of a species that's not very far up on the food chain).

2. Fall prey to a preditor (non-human) that will inflict painful wounds, often without a quick kill, and may very well begin eating poor Bambi before he's lost consciousness.

3. Fall prey to a preditor (human) that will inflict a painful wound, but one that usually leads to a comparatively quick death.

Either way you want to slice this cheese, all deer fall prey to either a human hunter, a four-legged hunter, or simple decay after dying of starvation.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 02:04 PM
Hunters are not doing all they can to minimize the suffering of their prey. They could do that by not putting bullets in them at all.

I've talked to hunters. They've never talked about how good the prey tastes. They're mainly happy to have killed something. While they might eat the animal, food is not the reason for the hunt.

All animals die eventually. Does that mean they should all be shot now rather than face the risk of a more painful death later? Hunters aren't seeking out old animals to kill. They're bringing down animals that are in perfect health with life left to potentially enjoy and sometimes young to care for.

Thinning the herd might be beneficial to the survivors, but that's not why hunter hunt them. Hunters hunt because they like to kill things. Any benefits are just side effects. Thinning the herd is an excuse, not a reason. It's why laws restricting hunting have become necessary in the first place.

I never claimed that hunters were psychopaths. I just pointed out a few facts. Others are drawing conclusions from those facts and are offended by them. That's hardly my fault.

mugaliens
2008-Aug-17, 03:17 PM
oops... inadvertant double post

mugaliens
2008-Aug-17, 03:37 PM
Hunters are not doing all they can to minimize the suffering of their prey. They could do that by not putting bullets in them at all.

Thereby letting them die of either the slow, painful death of starvation, or being ripped apart, often live, by a four-legged predator.

If you're after mercy, being hunted by man is about as merciful way to go as it gets.

But hunting isn't about mercy. It's about food. As the OP says, "Mmmm...meat good."

Let's get back to the OP, shall we?


I've talked to hunters.

I am a hunter. But go on...


They've never talked about how good the prey tastes. They're mainly happy to have killed something. While they might eat the animal, food is not the reason for the hunt.

Are you a mind reader now, too? Or is it just that you're not aware that the various feels that course through a man's soul a he bags his prey is about as taboo after the hunt as is talking about crying while watching a movie the night before?


All animals die eventually. Does that mean they should all be shot now...

:doh:


...rather than face the risk of a more painful death later? Hunters aren't seeking out old animals to kill. They're bringing down animals that are in perfect health with life left to potentially enjoy and sometimes young to care for.

Doe care for their young, not the bucks. This is why it's illegal to hunt doe, except in some states, and then, only during the relatively short period when the yearling is branching out on their own and before the doe is again in heat.


Thinning the herd might be beneficial to the survivors, but that's not why hunter hunt them. Hunters hunt because they like to kill things.

No. The laws governing hunting restrictions are set forth by wildlife management branches of our government to prevent runaway populations of certain wildlife, for the benefit of the wildlife.

Guess who put most of those laws into effect?

Yep. Hunters.

[Any benefits are just side effects. Thinning the herd is an excuse, not a reason.[/quote]

Ok, you got me there. We hunters are guilty of mass animalistic torture and murder and enacted laws just to get away with it...

Again, :doh:


I never claimed that hunters were psychopaths.

Yes, Chuck, you did: "Psychopaths inflict damage on other people for fun. Hunters inflict painful wounds on animals for fun."

And in so doing you managed to tick off quite a few of us.

You're still confusing the hunt with the kill. We hunt for fun. We don't kill for fun.

We kill because Mmmm...meat good!

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 04:05 PM
I'm sure there are some hunters who are motivated primarily to get good meat. I don't know any of those. They never brag about how good the meat tastes. They brag about the size of the animal. I can't read their minds. They reveal their thoughts by what they do and say.

Yes, a few hunters got laws passed to prevent the majority of hunters from killing everything in sight. The majority of hunters just want to kill something.

Torturing the prey isn't what motivates the hunters. They'd like a quick kill but it doesn't always turn out that way. They know they'll likely cause suffering but their desire to kill something overrides other concerns.

All animals eventually die. Should they all be shot down in their primes so they won't die a worse death of old age later? Or should they be allowed to live while they can enjoy life?

I didn't say hunters were psychopaths. I pointed out one similarity. Others read more into what I wrote because they see the similarity too.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 04:12 PM
I'm sure there are some hunters who are motivated primarily to get good meat. I don't know any of those. They never brag about how good the meat tastes. They brag about the size of the animal. I can't read their minds. They reveal their thoughts by what they do and say.

Yes, a few hunters got laws passed to prevent the majority of hunters from killing everything in sight. The majority of hunters just want to kill something.

Torturing the prey isn't what motivates the hunters. They'd like a quick kill but it doesn't always turn out that way. They know they'll likely cause suffering but their desire to kill something overrides other concerns.

All animals eventually die. Should they all be shot down in their primes so they won't die a worse death of old age later? Or should they be allowed to live while they can enjoy life?

I didn't say hunters were psychopaths. I pointed out one similarity. Others read more into what I wrote because they see the similarity too.

You don't even know which side of the fence you're on do you?

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 04:18 PM
I didn't pick a side. I'm reporting my observations.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 04:44 PM
I didn't pick a side. I'm reporting my observations.

And logically, I might add.

I can see why you have reached the conclusions you have, but my point is that you are missing part of the picture.

I will vouch that most hunters take no pleasure from killing.

Anymore than most soldiers take pleasure in killing.

But this does not prevent them from bragging about their adventures later.
You seem to be misinterpreting what's being said, into how you percieve them to be.

Chuck, hunting may just not be Your Way.
It isn't your mindframe.

Floral arrangement is not my mindframe.

Some people are not in the mind for science (HORRIFYING as this may be:p).
No matter how much you might explain science to them, they just won't care for it. But if you talk theater and art to them, THEN they get enthusiastic!

For you Chuck, you are Not A Hunter.
Being such, you're developing misconceptions about how a hunter thinks and feels. Because your mind works differently.

For me, personally, it is very hard to NOT react harshly toward your critical judgments and wrongness.
Because to me, the failure to prevent undue suffering in my prey is the highest point of dishonor.
It's like a doctor messing up surgery and causing his patient undue harm. The doctor feels like his purpose in life has been thwarted.

Jason
2008-Aug-17, 04:58 PM
If the part of hunting that hunters enjoy most is inflicting painful wounds to an animal, then why bother going into the wilderness to do it? Why not just order animals in cages to your home and kill them messily there?
Why isn't there a thriving business in delivering "deer in a box"?
Why don't hunters just go work in slaughter houses to get their fix?

The answer is that hunters DON'T enjoy watching animals suffer.

Tobin Dax
2008-Aug-17, 05:00 PM
They never brag about how good the meat tastes.
I've heard a number of deer hunters say how good fresh venison is.

I understand where you're trying to go with this (or trying not to go with this, since you still won't admit that you have a point). I don't hunt. Never have, never will. Neverfly is right, you don't know how they think. Neither do I. Still, you are very obviously mischaracterising a group of people as a whole. That's never a good thing to do.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 05:00 PM
If the part of hunting that hunters enjoy most is inflicting painful wounds to an animal, then why bother going into the wilderness to do it? Why not just order animals in cages to your home and kill them messily there?
Why isn't there a thriving business in delivering "deer in a box"?
Why don't hunters just go work in slaughter houses to get their fix?

The answer is that hunters DON'T enjoy watching animals suffer.

This is a very good point and can be expanded to ask, "How many slaughterhouse employees are also hunters?"

It's a major part of the reason I mentioned above about my opposition to the slaughterhouse technique for providing meat.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 05:37 PM
And logically, I might add.

I can see why you have reached the conclusions you have, but my point is that you are missing part of the picture.

I will vouch that most hunters take no pleasure from killing.

Anymore than most soldiers take pleasure in killing.

But this does not prevent them from bragging about their adventures later.
You seem to be misinterpreting what's being said, into how you percieve them to be.

Chuck, hunting may just not be Your Way.
It isn't your mindframe.

Floral arrangement is not my mindframe.

Some people are not in the mind for science (HORRIFYING as this may be:p).
No matter how much you might explain science to them, they just won't care for it. But if you talk theater and art to them, THEN they get enthusiastic!

For you Chuck, you are Not A Hunter.
Being such, you're developing misconceptions about how a hunter thinks and feels. Because your mind works differently.

For me, personally, it is very hard to NOT react harshly toward your critical judgments and wrongness.
Because to me, the failure to prevent undue suffering in my prey is the highest point of dishonor.
It's like a doctor messing up surgery and causing his patient undue harm. The doctor feels like his purpose in life has been thwarted.

If failure to prevent undue suffering were the highest dishonor then they could just not shoot. It looks to me like failing to kill something is the highest dishonor with failure to prevent undue suffering coming in second at best. If they take no pleasure from the kill they could track it and let it live. Their action don't seem to reflect your claims.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 05:40 PM
If the part of hunting that hunters enjoy most is inflicting painful wounds to an animal, then why bother going into the wilderness to do it? Why not just order animals in cages to your home and kill them messily there?
Why isn't there a thriving business in delivering "deer in a box"?
Why don't hunters just go work in slaughter houses to get their fix?

The answer is that hunters DON'T enjoy watching animals suffer.
I didn't say that hunters enjoy inflicting pain. I said they enjoy an activity that inflicts pain. A doctor might inflict temporary pain to save a life. A hunter inflicts temporary pain to kill something. Neither has the primary goal of inflicting pain.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 05:54 PM
I've heard a number of deer hunters say how good fresh venison is.

I understand where you're trying to go with this (or trying not to go with this, since you still won't admit that you have a point). I don't hunt. Never have, never will. Neverfly is right, you don't know how they think. Neither do I. Still, you are very obviously mischaracterising a group of people as a whole. That's never a good thing to do.
I realize that motives vary from person to person, but whatever reason each has for shooting animals, they are all willing to inflict pain on them to achieve their goals. They might try to avoid it, but they know it's likely to happen.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 06:40 PM
If failure to prevent undue suffering were the highest dishonor then they could just not shoot. It looks to me like failing to kill something is the highest dishonor with failure to prevent undue suffering coming in second at best. If they take no pleasure from the kill they could track it and let it live. Their action don't seem to reflect your claims.

Without the kill, no meat.

You are operating under the assumption that a hunter should just hunt without completing the hunt.

That's nonsense.

Bag your prey and take it home to eat it.

I realize that motives vary from person to person, but whatever reason each has for shooting animals, they are all willing to inflict pain on them to achieve their goals. They might try to avoid it, but they know it's likely to happen.

And here you are being confused again.
Chuck, perhaps you should wait on taking a stand on an issue until you know, for sure, where you are standing.

YOU, personally, may not be willing to Shoot and Kill.
But I am willing to carry that. And you should be grateful that there are those like me that are.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 06:50 PM
I'm not confused at all. Hunters would rather inflict pain on animals than do without having the fun of hunting. Why should I be grateful that you're willing to torment and kill something that's not bothering me?

turbo-1
2008-Aug-17, 06:51 PM
The similarity is there. I didn't make it up. They enjoy an activity that inflicts pain.I am a hunter. I hunt deer with a Ruger Model 1 (single-shot) rifle in .45-70. I have never shot a deer with that rifle needed a 2nd shot, and I have passed up many, many shots because I wasn't absolutely sure of a clean kill.

I hunt with other people who have similar ethics toward the treatment of animals. We are hunting for food and believe me, the least-enjoyable part of the hunt is the kill. Still, a buck that has lived his whole life free has had a better life than almost any domesticated food animal, especially if you can dispatch him humanely.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 07:09 PM
I don't see how a buck deserves to be shot just because it's had a better life than some livestock. Even if your first shot always kills it doesn't mean there was no pain.

nauthiz
2008-Aug-17, 07:21 PM
Do hunters eat what they kill? Yes.
So did Jeffrey Dahmer. :lol:

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 07:27 PM
Well, Jeffrey had special dietary needs, apparently. I don't think that's true of most hunters.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Aug-17, 07:39 PM
Why should I be grateful that you're willing to torment and kill something that's not bothering me?
"Torment and kill" indicates that infliction of pain is done beyond what's needed to kill.

You're using deliberately inflammatory and misleading language to promote your position which makes it look like you don't actually have a rational argument for your case, as well as makes a mockery of your earlier claim of being a neutral reporter of observations.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-17, 07:47 PM
"Torment and kill" indicates that infliction of pain is done beyond what's needed to kill.

You're using deliberately inflammatory and misleading language to promote your position which makes it look like you don't actually have a rational argument for your case, as well as makes a mockery of your earlier claim of being a neutral reporter of observations.

Which is why I ceased going 'round and 'round with him. He does not understand hunting or hunters and he's not interested in understanding. It's all about his pronouncements and disdain.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 07:49 PM
I don't need to understand hunters. I clearly see that they would rather inflict pain on animals than do without hunting, even though inflicting pain is not the reason for hunting.

I don't understand people who inflict pain for fun, even if that pain is just a side effect of whatever enjoyment they're getting.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-17, 08:45 PM
I don't need to understand hunters. I clearly see that they would rather inflict pain on animals than do without hunting, even though inflicting pain is not the reason for hunting.

I don't understand people who inflict pain for fun, even if that pain is just a side effect of whatever enjoyment they're getting.

In other words, "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up, already."
Which is why I ceased going 'round and 'round with him. He does not understand hunting or hunters and he's not interested in understanding. It's all about his pronouncements and disdain.

I third this motion. Count me out of this one...

nauthiz
2008-Aug-17, 09:33 PM
Iunno, it to me like nobody has gotten much beyond talking past each other and tossing around sweeping generalizations and whatnot.

Chuck's certainly thrown out some loaded language, but also has touched on an interesting point that everybody's been too busy being offended to address in a particularly satisfying answer: What reason do folks have to kill animals, other than enjoyment? On one hand, I haven't really seen much in the way of alternative explanations (simply saying "for food" isn't going to be a satisfactory answer to a vegetarian, for obvious reasons). On the other hand, the extent to which some folks seem to have been offended by the assertion that they're killing for enjoyment (or indirectly paying others to do so, or whatever) suggests that there's a strong feeling that pleasure isn't sufficient cause, so one would presume that some other explanation might be forthcoming.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 09:36 PM
In other words, "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up, already."

I third this motion. Count me out of this one...

I have plenty of facts. That's why people take offense at my posts. The facts don't make them look good.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 09:39 PM
Iunno, it to me like nobody has gotten much beyond talking past each other and tossing around sweeping generalizations and whatnot.

Chuck's certainly thrown out some loaded language, but also has touched on an interesting point that everybody's been too busy being offended to address in a particularly satisfying answer: What reason do folks have to kill animals, other than enjoyment? On one hand, I haven't really seen much in the way of alternative explanations (simply saying "for food" isn't going to be a satisfactory answer to a vegetarian, for obvious reasons). On the other hand, the extent to which some folks seem to have been offended by the assertion that they're killing for enjoyment (or indirectly paying others to do so, or whatever) suggests that there's a strong feeling that pleasure isn't sufficient cause, so one would presume that some other explanation might be forthcoming.

My neutral commentary has loaded language? It doesn't seem that way to me.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-17, 09:48 PM
Hopelessly derailed.

nauthiz
2008-Aug-17, 09:49 PM
The "torment and kill" one, for example. Kill alone would have been sufficient, and adding "torment" to the phrase adds the implication that PetersCreek hunts because he derives a sadistic pleasure from the suffering of animals, which seems rather unlikely.

Not meaning to beat up on you. Frankly, PetersCreek has done the least to impress me so far, not least of which because the content of his first post (and this thread's title) make it pretty clear that he had some rather trollish intentions in his heart when he started this thread in the first place. I'm never impressed to see someone pick a fight and then whine and cry foul when they get exactly what they were asking for.

Chuck
2008-Aug-17, 09:57 PM
Whether or not torment is intended, it is being done. I previously pointed out that I didn't think it was the main purpose of the hunter.

PetersCreek
2008-Aug-17, 10:25 PM
Frankly, PetersCreek has done the least to impress me so far, not least of which because the content of his first post (and this thread's title) make it pretty clear that he had some rather trollish intentions in his heart when he started this thread in the first place.

Well, actually no, I had no trollish intentions at all but I do apologize if it came across that way. My OP dig at vegans was intended to be nothing but good-natured. As I said, this thread has been hopelessly derailed in a direction I never intended. Probably best to ask a mod to close it.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-18, 12:11 AM
Chuck's certainly thrown out some loaded language, but also has touched on an interesting point that everybody's been too busy being offended to address in a particularly satisfying answer

I have plenty of facts. That's why people take offense at my posts. The facts don't make them look good.
Actually, no.
You're both wrong.

It's not that folks are so much being offended, as much as exasperation at such a complete misunderstanding, posturing of ideals and a total ignorance to the reality.

If I WAS going to be offended- it would be over the blanket accusation that hunters in general take sadistic pleasure out of tormenting and killing.
But I understand, rationally, that Chuck has got the wrong end of the stick.


What reason do folks have to kill animals, other than enjoyment?
What reason do you have to kill millions of bacteria when you wash your hands other than enjoying killing them?

On one hand, I haven't really seen much in the way of alternative explanations (simply saying "for food" isn't going to be a satisfactory answer to a vegetarian, for obvious reasons).
I've never known a vegetarian hunter...


On the other hand, the extent to which some folks seem to have been offended by the assertion that they're killing for enjoyment (or indirectly paying others to do so, or whatever) suggests that there's a strong feeling that pleasure isn't sufficient cause, so one would presume that some other explanation might be forthcoming.

Now this statement was thinly veiled...:rolleyes:

The problem is that it's particularly difficult to explain to someone who is throwing out such accusations as "You Bambi Murderer!"
You are well aware that it's like talking to an HB- You can explain it perfectly a thousand times, but they are not listening.

Chuck- and apparently yourself, seem to not have the mindframe of a hunter.
And that's fine.

But for those of us who, whether it's genetic, our nature, our ancestry- Whatever, appreciate the HUNT- we cannot really expect folks like you to understand it.

I knew Chuck was beyond reasoning once he began his posts with talk of Torment etc.

My first thought was, "Oh boy! One of THOSE:rolleyes:"

Neverfly
2008-Aug-18, 12:15 AM
Not meaning to beat up on you. Frankly, PetersCreek has done the least to impress me so far, not least of which because the content of his first post (and this thread's title) make it pretty clear that he had some rather trollish intentions in his heart when he started this thread in the first place. I'm never impressed to see someone pick a fight and then whine and cry foul when they get exactly what they were asking for.

Utter nonsense. The OP was not trollish in any regard.
It pokes fun- yeah- So what?

Would you walk into a Brittany Spears fanclub and rain on their parade dogging them for being fans of the <person>?
Would you Walk into a gunclub and give them a hard time about firearms?
Would you walk into a knife exhibition screaming about how knives are used for crime and violence?
You would be hauled out by security.
Those people aren't gathered there to hear you whine and cry. They are there to discuss something they have an interest in and enjoy.

Same as on BAUT- in general, we are all interested in astronomy, and disinterested in Astrologers who want to go to the sastronomy forum and post outside of what we are enjoying discussing.
That's why the BA set up rules against that kind of behavior.

ToSeek
2008-Aug-18, 12:33 AM
Thread closed at OP's request.