EnviroLink Forum

misconceptions used in dishonest debate
Page 2 of 2

Author:  wijim [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Grace wrote:
wijim wrote:
maybe someone can actually prove use=abuse.

on one hand you have grace who has never ever hunted and knows so little about the actual activities with hunting and trapping coming up with hunting and trapping ethics, on the other hand you have animaluver, and lacy basically stating because i wont personally say i damn some ex-employee based on their word that the person is an animal abuser that i support animal abuse.

Correction. Grace HAS hunted (once) Grace also grew up with hunting all around her and had many boyfriends, friends, friends' fathers, brothers and neighbors who hunted. Grace ate venison.

i dont consider that as being a bit experienced. i would consider that "you hunted once" as more experience than spending years around "boyfriends, friends, friends' fathers, brothers and neighbors" who have hunted. and im still curious to hear the details of "the hunt"...lol

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

My wife has gone to the woods with me as I checked traps and did some hunting. She even traveled a wilderness trek with me a few times as I checked my river traps line by canoe. She would be the first to admit that she doesn't know how to trap but wondered what all the fuss is about trapping and cruelity because all the animals were dead in my traps. She saw me shoot several deer and knows that the deer are not running the woods all bleeding and wounded but downed without taking a step after the bullet hits. My wife needed to know those things because she had heard so many horror stories growing up in the city. She understands hunting and trapping much better now and also knows that nature has built in safty valves for all animals which allow for species culls. Grace is not a hunter or does she want to face the reality that her feelings of denyed moral superiority would be shattered if she found out hunters and trappers are concerned about animals dying as humanly as possable.

Wayne expressed Grace's dilema as well as anyone when he made this statement regarding Grace's opinions/morals, which she wishs to dictate upon others..

No, they are allowed. The point hunter88 is trying to make is that one can hold such an opinion and propose to enact a prohibition if one believes their morals are better than another's.

If one believes morals are equal then one cannot say the actions of another are "bad" just because they disagree. Grace seems to have taken both stances and that creates an apparent dichotomy that needs to be addressed.

And thus we find a thread Titled as is this one.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group