BF2S Forums Killing small animals verses killing while hunting.

imortal wrote:

This part is off topic, but is related.  In three sentances you established that you have no first hand experience on a subject, and then promptly contradict the established experts on the subjet (lots of experts in this circumstance, most of them with letters like PhD behind their name) based soley on your own assumtions.  As I said, slightly off topic, but it shows your mental processees.

You have NO first hand experiences on hunting, but you are constantly making (mostly incorrect) assumptions about the subject.  You impose your own moral judgements upon the activity you have no real information about, and refuse to accept or consider information by those who DO have first hand knowledge.

I am guessing you are a teenager.

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-04-22 19:26:37)

Last edited by Flecco (2009-04-22 19:47:05)

Nothing crazy about being determined in your beliefs.  However, most of those experts have shown that in a majority of rape cases, the rapist did not even climax.

You are correct, I am not gay, and I do not personally like the idea of anal sex.  However, I do know several people who are gay and enjoy anal sex, and I can accept that their is nothing inherently wrong or incorrect with their enjoyment of it.  Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I feel the need to vilify it.

I was noting your argument style.  Unwavering moral cetainty, polarization of viewpoints, hyper-critical... you are writing a psych paper, you said?  Surely you recognize the developmental psychological profile of a typical teenager!  Oh, and for the record, I am not a redneck.  most redneck friends I have would laugh at that.  I drive a japanese sedan.  I do not wear a hat or speak with a southern accent.  I have never lived outside of the city limits of a city greater than 50,000 people.  I do not listen to country music.  I already told you what I based my assumption on; on what did you base yours?

This is simply emphasizing hyperbole in an attempt to try to maintain a hold on the argument you have already lost.  You ask me to prove something that is obviously unprovable, in an attempt to distract me and everyone else away from your previous assumptions in the hope they will go unchallanged and thus become accepted.   Why would a hunter use a GPS for anything other than to keep from getting lost?  It will not help you find a deer.  Go ahead and lay out bait; if the deer senses you, you will NOT get a shot on them; they will be long gone.  A hunting dog is used in BIRD hunting, to point out where a bird is hiding in the bush, and to retrieve the bird if it falls.  The range is short, which actually makes the birds harder to hit.  You do not use a dog when hunting a deer.  Yes, I use a rifle and scope.  That is to give me not only a sporting chance, but allows me to make it a fast kill,  so as not to prolong the suffering of the deer.  That deer can sense me at a greater range than I can sense them (with anything other than the scope, and that is still limited).  The deer is faster, and hides better.

The problem is that you are arguing a subject you know nothing about, refuse to admit that your assumtions are wrong.  You might as well state that the sky is pink, ignore anyone telling you otherwise, disregard any pictures you are shown, and refusing to look up to experience it for yourself.  You don't even have the framework to have an informed discussion or debate on this subject.

FatherTed wrote:

theres something satisfying in shooting and stewing rabbits

Pochsy wrote:

Difference lies in the way you kill the animal. If I kill a pig with a chainsaw I'm sick. If I kill a pig with an electric wire I'm a butcher.

FatherTed wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Difference lies in the way you kill the animal. If I kill a pig with a chainsaw I'm sick. If I kill a pig with an electric wire I'm a butcher.

Why does the method matter? If it's dead it's dead.

Why is the needle more humane than being disemboweled?

You know the answer.

"The incidence of sexual dysfunction during rape may be high.  Interviews with 170 men convicted of sexual assault revealed that erectile failure as well as premature ejaculation during thier criminal act had occurred for a third of these men, although almost none reported having these problems ih his consenting sexual relations.  Only one-fourth of the men gave no evidence of sexual dysfunction during rape (Groth and Burgess, 1977)."  The book is Abnormal Psychology, fifth edition, by Davison and Neale.  My wife has a Bachlors in Psychology, and our house is stacked in textbooks.

No, you were comparing it on equal footing as the abnormal behavior of abusing and killing small animals.  Granted, you tried to specify not hunting for food, but that was as far as you went.  It may be you did not refer with enough detail to what you wanted to refer to out of a lack of knowledge about the subject.  I reacted to what I felt the post said, not to what you felt the post said. Looking at a subject from a different point of view yields different assumptions.

It is not equal combat.  It is a HUNT.  The deer flees.  If it gets away, it wins.  If I manage to keep up, manage to get a clear shot, manage to hit the deer and kill it, then I win.  Hopefully, I hit the deer in a critical spot, it goes down quickly.  If it does, and it is not dead when I find it, I slit its throat, cutting short its pain.  If it is hit in a bad spot, it runs away, wounded.  It can last hours, still trying to get away.  If I am lucky, and good, I can track it, follow it, and find it, then put it out of its misery.  Just because I am hunting it, does not mean I have to be especially cruel.  I know that seems like a paradoxical position, but it indeed exists.  Hunters respect their prey.  If I am going to kill it, I at least owe it a clean, fast kill.

If you miss, you can occasionally get a second shot off at a rapidly moving target; much harder than the first shot.  It is very rare to get a third shot off.  Remember, it is the woods.  Lots of those tree thingies to get in the way.  If it is a short range shot, odds are they will dissapear in the brush too fast.  If it is a longer shot, they will be visible longer, but it is a much longer, harder shot.  If he gets away, I am not going to track that same deer, since they will be long gone.  The only reason I will do that trek is if I wounded the deer, and I owe it that.

I think you just don't get how easy it is for the deer to get away.  It is a lot more common to come back empty handed than with a kill.  Unless, of course, there are a WHOLE lot of deer, but at that point, there are too many deer for the area to support.  Since we have killed off most of the deers natural preditors, it is dependant on the hunters to keep the population under control or they will all starve out as they strip out their resources.

Macbeth wrote:

One in a million chance.

Macbeth wrote:

That is fucking insane man. Don't ever be a doctor or nurse.

Pochsy wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

That is fucking insane man. Don't ever be a doctor or nurse.

So we shouldn't be giving morphine to dying soldiers to let them go peacefully and do what we can (short of finishing them)? Instead we should let their asses suffer and die?

Take a step back man. At this point I think you're just saying these things because you can't go back.

imortal wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

imortal wrote:

Sit and watch a wounded animal with a broken back struggle to its feet only to fall again, dripping its blood onto the ground, its nose flaring as it fights for breath.  Sit and watch as it fights to get away, whimpering; a sad parady of its normal self.  It is in pain, suffering.  It is an act of mercy, of humanity that, if you need to kill an animal, you do it quickly and cleanly.  How an animal dies matters; maybe not to it, dead is dead, as you say.  But it matters to me;  I may be killing an animal, but I am not immune to its suffering.  I do not take pleasure in the act of causing it pain, even though I do enjoy to successful conclusion to the hunt.

Welcome to the dichotomy that is humanity.

I'm so fucking confused now. You actually feel bad when you shot it and it's struggling to survive but you where the one that shoot it in the first place but then you feel merciful to actually finish it off?
That is fucking insane man. Don't ever be a doctor or nurse.

I am actually an EMT and a nursing student.  My mother is a nurse.  My wife is a paramedic and a nurse.

Ever hear the term 'bittersweet?'  Having multiple feelings on multiple levels?  Yes, all at once, at the end of a good hunt, you can feel exilleration, satisfaction, pity, sadness, and mercy all at once.  It is not insane.  It is just complex.  i don't feel bad that I shot it.  I feel bad when I do not shoot it well.   As I have said many times, you just don't have the frame of reference to understand yet.  It is not an insult, just the truth.

Macbeth wrote:

When did you get a back bone?
I meant it as he shot it then thought he was doing the nice thing by killing it.
It's like a doctor that goes out and does surgery then fucks up really badly but then decides he'll do the merciful thing and kill you, and he'll still feel good about himself.

imortal wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I meant it as he shot it then thought he was doing the nice thing by killing it.
It's like a doctor that goes out and does surgery then fucks up really badly but then decides he'll do the merciful thing and kill you, and he'll still feel good about himself.

Okay, that is a hell of a bad analogy.  First, you are equating an animals life to the life of a human.  Life is not Life.  Second, you are equating the doctors mistake with an intentional act of a hunter.  That being said, if you want a human analogy, look at hospice care.  When human beings are going to die anyway, the priority of the caregivers is to make the patient as pain-free as possible, even if it may shorten their life.  I do not see an inconsistancy.

Macbeth wrote:

Places to visit
Austin, Texas
Warsaw, Poland
Baghdad, Iraq
Berlin, Germany
Ok I'll go hunting one day and I'll shoot something and I'll tell you the mix of feelings.

That is pretty funny.  You actually think this attitude is limited to Austin?  They have hunters worldwide. Mine may not be the only viewpoint, but it is a common one.