Author Topic: Hunting  (Read 11315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ender

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • View Profile
Hunting
« on: December 25, 2007, 05:20:01 pm »
CrAz3d, are you getting that gun for hunting animals?

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2007, 05:24:11 pm »
CrAz3d, are you getting that gun for hunting animals?

My school allows rifles. I don't see why it's a problem... (but that's for a different thread)

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2007, 06:28:32 pm »
CrAz3d, are you getting that gun for hunting animals?

My school allows rifles. I don't see why it's a problem... (but that's for a different thread)


Your point, and how your post relates to Ender's question, isn't very clear.

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2007, 06:37:00 pm »
CrAz3d, are you getting that gun for hunting animals?

My school allows rifles. I don't see why it's a problem... (but that's for a different thread)


Your point, and how your post relates to Ender's question, isn't very clear.


Originally the post said something along the lines of: "Your getting a gun to keep on a college campus?" or something of that nature. Or maybe I'm just going crazy.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2007, 08:40:16 pm »
CrAz3d, are you getting that gun for hunting animals?
Rifle, yes; 9mm, no...well, maybe. 
I can go crazy on coyotes with the 9mm, a nice .22 rifle would be fun for that, too. 

After tomorrow's trip I'll have my .22 revolver (I want to make new grips for it, I'd need a nice chisel and some HARD wood and good templates), a rifle, maybe a S&W 9mm, and a (hopefully) working gun safe

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2007, 10:08:32 pm »
I can go crazy on coyotes with the 9mm, a nice .22 rifle would be fun for that, too. 

Don't you think it's in bad spirits to terrorize and kill intelligent animals just for amusement? 

Offline Ender

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2007, 10:33:15 pm »
It's also plain stupid to store a gun on a college campus. It doesn't improve your safety; it does the opposite. And, as stated, hunting for amusement is evil. Since hunting and safety are ruled out as motivations, there's no good reason to having a gun on campus.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2007, 12:49:37 am »
I can go crazy on coyotes with the 9mm, a nice .22 rifle would be fun for that, too. 
Don't you think it's in bad spirits to terrorize and kill intelligent animals just for amusement? 
Coyote shooting is encouraged in most places.  Sometimes you even money if you bring in their ears, not sure if my county is (still?) like that.

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: Hunting
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2007, 01:24:29 am »
Coyote shooting is encouraged in most places.  Sometimes you even money if you bring in their ears, not sure if my county is (still?) like that.
WTF?  You should be banned.  Go to Old Mexico for that.  Stay out of the new one.

And, as stated, hunting for amusement is evil.
While I would tend to agree, stating it in one post does not qualify as establishing fact.  Particularly if you cite it in the post immediately following the initial statement. :P
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: Hunting
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2007, 01:46:44 am »
Damn mormons.  ^^
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2007, 01:49:56 am »
Damn mormons.  ^^
http://wolfsaga.blogspot.com/2006/10/utah-offers-bounty-for-dead-coyote.html
Page 6, under the title "Rabbits and other non-game species"

"Residents are not required to have a hunting license to take rabbits or other nongame species.
Common nongame species include coyotes, skunks, rabbits, and rock squirrels."

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2007, 02:27:43 am »
Damn mormons.  ^^
http://wolfsaga.blogspot.com/2006/10/utah-offers-bounty-for-dead-coyote.html
Page 6, under the title "Rabbits and other non-game species"

"Residents are not required to have a hunting license to take rabbits or other nongame species.
Common nongame species include coyotes, skunks, rabbits, and rock squirrels."

You didn't really respond to my comment.  Don't you think it's in bad spirits to terrorize and kill intelligent animals just for amusement?  You would be hunting because you derive pleasure from the adrenaline and uncertainty that comes with stalking, terrorizing, and hopefully killing, an intelligent animal in an unfair game.  Otherwise you would refer to it as a "duty", and not as fun.  A reward, and the idea that you are ridding the world of a pest, serve as comforting rationalisations.  Armed with these, and without deeply considering the essence of what you're doing and why you enjoy it, I can understand how this sport is appealing.  But when you think about the striking parallels between hunting and abusive activities we -- you, I, and most others -- actively deem people mentally sick for enjoying, doesn't it turn you off?   That by the end of the day, you've scared, disrespected, and ultimately killed, a conscious, feeling, wild animal, in exchange for some short-lived adrenaline (provided you don't think too deeply about what you're doing) and a pat on the back for a job well done.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 02:43:41 am by Rule »

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2007, 09:51:45 am »
Damn mormons.  ^^
http://wolfsaga.blogspot.com/2006/10/utah-offers-bounty-for-dead-coyote.html
Page 6, under the title "Rabbits and other non-game species"

"Residents are not required to have a hunting license to take rabbits or other nongame species.
Common nongame species include coyotes, skunks, rabbits, and rock squirrels."

You didn't really respond to my comment.  Don't you think it's in bad spirits to terrorize and kill intelligent animals just for amusement?  You would be hunting because you derive pleasure from the adrenaline and uncertainty that comes with stalking, terrorizing, and hopefully killing, an intelligent animal in an unfair game.  Otherwise you would refer to it as a "duty", and not as fun.  A reward, and the idea that you are ridding the world of a pest, serve as comforting rationalisations.  Armed with these, and without deeply considering the essence of what you're doing and why you enjoy it, I can understand how this sport is appealing.  But when you think about the striking parallels between hunting and abusive activities we -- you, I, and most others -- actively deem people mentally sick for enjoying, doesn't it turn you off?   That by the end of the day, you've scared, disrespected, and ultimately killed, a conscious, feeling, wild animal, in exchange for some short-lived adrenaline (provided you don't think too deeply about what you're doing) and a pat on the back for a job well done.
Sure it'd be fun.  Sure it'd be helpful.  Sure it's ok to do.

This is definitely not something deemed "mentally sick" by most around here.  You are apart of a different culture.  We, most others and myself, mock Canadians just for their inherent suckiness, you probably disagree with that ;D.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2007, 10:45:08 am »
I can go crazy on coyotes with the 9mm, a nice .22 rifle would be fun for that, too. 
Don't you think it's in bad spirits to terrorize and kill intelligent animals just for amusement? 
Coyote shooting is encouraged in most places.  Sometimes you even money if you bring in their ears, not sure if my county is (still?) like that.
I've said this many times before, but I'll say it again: just because something is legal or encouraged by society, that doesn't mean it's right or good. You have to think for yourself and evaluate your actions based on moral criteria, not on laws.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2007, 10:46:33 am »
My morals and culture say okey dokey to shootin' coyote.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2007, 10:51:39 am »
My morals and culture say okey dokey to shootin' coyote.
What you're saying is that your morals say it's ok to "terrorize and kill intelligent animals". That's unfortunate.   

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2007, 10:54:28 am »
mmmmmm, basically, minus the terrorize.

But you live in a city yeah?  In order for that city to exist animals were 'terrorized and killed', you must support that since you live there.

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: Hunting
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2007, 11:50:06 am »
I love the leftist spin (via wording) in this topic. Shooting local pests (coyote's eat farm animals for instance) instantly becomes "terrorizing" innocent and intelligent animals.
This does present a good point.  I don't think that shooting animals intrinsically "terrorizes" them.  Particularly when there's need for ecological balance (e.g., in the event that a migration of people drives species A into a new habitat, and species A is a predator of species B, which already lived in that habitat).  Of course you could argue that the people should move.  Of course, nobody will ever really accept that argument - not that it's invalid, but if people want to live there, you're not going to keep them out, short of legislation.  And it'll be arduous.
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2007, 01:43:14 pm »
MF/Crazed/Trust: This isn't "leftist spin".  Does everything have to be about politics?  I asked a simple question, and in response, all I've read are irrelevant rationalisations and some thoughtless jabs at a political ideology.  Bringing in politics is particularly disturbing, since it verifies how I understand your thought processes; you have been conditioned to politicize everything.  Rather than carefully considering each individual situation as it presents itself, you bind yourself to a group of people, and when you identify an opinion or argument as one that could be out of line with what the group beliefs, then your mind switches into attacking that belief, until it goes away.  You don't think and then react, you react and then, at best, justify your reaction.  You are not interested in learning from an argument, or even close to entertaining the idea that the other side could be making a good point -- you are instead mostly interested in stamping out the unorthodox belief by whatever means seems effective.  This is mostly directed at Trust (not so much at Myndfyre), since Trust explicitly tried to politicize the argument -- so the discussion could just shift to lefties vs. righties -- and of anyone here, he is least likely to think about what the other person is saying and change his opinion, even if what he says can be shown to be as close to as objectively wrong as is practically possible. 

Now, Crazed, you did not fully read or understand the points I made.  I said most hunting parallels actions you would deem someone mentally sick for enjoying.  I didn't say it was an action you deem someone mentally sick for enjoying.  If you felt poorly about taking the lives of these animals, and somehow felt a reward, or whatever else, justified what you were doing, you would not refer to it as "fun", but as a duty.  It's not as though you'd go out and pick trash off the road for fun.  (I do not think a reward or calling the animal a pest justifies its death, but that is a different argument).

Why do people enjoy hunting?  Think about it.  It's the uncertainty and excitement derived from stalking and killing an animal.  It's a game.  And of course the animal is terrorized in this process, how could it not be?   It runs for its life and you shoot with a gun.  If this weren't the case, it wouldn't be referred to as a "game", and you wouldn't enjoy it.  What does it parallel?  Rape is an example.  People commit rape because they enjoy the adrenaline and power they get from the situation.  Why is rape considered wrong?  Because you are emotionally damaging someone.  How about hitting a child? 

Hunting appeals to your baser instincts.  They are natural instincts, but just because something is natural does not imply that it is moral, or even in the long term best interests of society.  Rape, murder, and everything else that people do, however unusual or morally questionable, is what they were designed to do, and so nothing is justified solely on the basis of being "natural".

I don't know why I bother though.  I've probably written too much for people to likely read and understand.  There's enough text here that my questions will be ignored, or forgotten, and the argument can be redirected. I'm sure someone will misunderstand something, and disagree with what he misunderstands, or some additional and irrelevant rationlisations will be introduced.   Or there just won't be any intelligent response, just something short like "It's ok to do what I'm doing".   If I could save one coyote, I think this thread would have been worthwhile.  But I am a misanthrope; I've lost faith in most people's willingless to learn and change.  People are mostly interested in winning, or doing whatever feels good in the moment without having to think about it too much. 

What is it that's fun about hunting?



« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 01:56:31 pm by Rule »

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: Hunting
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2007, 02:08:23 pm »
MF/Crazed/Trust: This isn't "leftist spin".
I didn't say it was "leftist spin".  I quoted the statement that said it was, and highlighted the part I thought was an important point:
I don't think that shooting animals intrinsically "terrorizes" them.
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2007, 02:29:01 pm »
What isn't fun about hunting?  The rush, being out there in nature, the beauty, the awesome food afterwards?

The animal is not terrorized at all.  If it was it wouldn't be within a mile of you ... it'd be running 30 mph and you'd have no chance in hell of shooting it. 

You can't compare hunting game to raping people, that's a lovely example of your propaganda against anything I ever post.  You don't rely on reasonable arguments, you attempt to prove me wrong by calling me racist, mentally sick, and comparing me to a rapist.  If that's how you truly feel, fine, but I doubt that it is.  So until you can grow up a little bit I will reconsider responding to your infantile insults.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 02:32:04 pm by CrAz3D »

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2007, 02:46:54 pm »
I think Crazed's response that was trashed was very telling: http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,10923.0.html

It adds tremendous value to what I had written.  Since it was an ad hominem attack, I can understand why it was trashed, but I think it's important that it be seen in the context of this discussion.  He responds in the sort of way I had predicted, only to an extreme.  Crazed, you should try to learn from and listen to people who are, most likely, more intelligent and thoughtful than you are.  When we make the transition from math or strict logic to social issues, most arguments lose the property that they can be proven correct or incorrect, but the same kind of reasoning is still applied in both situations. It follows that your deficit in critical thinking will likely spill over into these social arguments, and the only reasons you don't recognize it as readily are:
1) Your social conditioning
2) The inability to be absolutely correct or incorrect.

In five hundred years, we will look back upon the way we currently treat animals as abusive and atrocious.  Most people cheered when the Nazis excuted millions of Jews.  Most people cheered when witches were burned.  Most people thought it was right to use Africans as slaves.  Now most of us see these things as wrong.  It's easy to agree that something is good or bad when you are sharing an opinion with 99% of the public.  However, public opinion shifts drastically, and what was once "right" does not become "wrong" if very little else is changing.  I believe that a majority of your opinions will be seen as atrocious by people in future generations.  If you were a member of the general public of the future, you would think your present views are atrocious.

Edit:
Responding to your most recent post.  You would eat Coyote?  What does the rush come from? It comes from cold-hearted killing.  And the comparison to rape?  That is truly how I feel.  In most cases, I think scaring and then killing an intelligent animal for no reason other than for some type of instinctual high is just as bad as rape, and the mechanism through which one derives pleasure from each activity is identical.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 02:55:19 pm by Rule »

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2007, 05:56:39 pm »
While I do agree with Rule, this is not the place for this discussion.  Who wants to split?

Yeah, I was going to suggest that too. 

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2007, 07:46:01 pm »
MF/Crazed/Trust: This isn't "leftist spin".  Does everything have to be about politics?  I asked a simple question, and in response, all I've read are irrelevant rationalisations and some thoughtless jabs at a political ideology.  Bringing in politics is particularly disturbing, since it verifies how I understand your thought processes; you have been conditioned to politicize everything.  Rather than carefully considering each individual situation as it presents itself, you bind yourself to a group of people, and when you identify an opinion or argument as one that could be out of line with what the group beliefs, then your mind switches into attacking that belief, until it goes away.  You don't think and then react, you react and then, at best, justify your reaction.  You are not interested in learning from an argument, or even close to entertaining the idea that the other side could be making a good point -- you are instead mostly interested in stamping out the unorthodox belief by whatever means seems effective.  This is mostly directed at Trust (not so much at Myndfyre), since Trust explicitly tried to politicize the argument -- so the discussion could just shift to lefties vs. righties -- and of anyone here, he is least likely to think about what the other person is saying and change his opinion, even if what he says can be shown to be as close to as objectively wrong as is practically possible. 

No this is exactly what it is, it's no different than when political pollsters ask questions which are used to place an idea in a persons head about a candidate (i.e. Would you vote for candidate x if you knew he abused drugs a, b, and c). Even if the candidate never used a drug in his life, the idea that he did is now in the voters head and they won't vote for him. That's exactly what you're doing. You're using careful wording, strong and harsh words one would initially associate with negative actions (rape, terrorize) and then you're humanizing the animals (referring to them as intelligent and innocent). Regardless of whether or not the animals are innocent or intelligent, these are usually characteristics used to describe humans. You placed these harsh words in the readers head, which automatically turns this into an argument of, essentially, good vs. evil. You're just as guilty of politicking as I am, but at least I am straightforward with it. Instead you manipulate the reader by your wording (and you're intelligent enough to consciously do this) and then insult the opposition to further make us the "bad guys." (For example, CrAz3D and I are unable to do basic algebra, we don't listen to or learn from other arguments, we wouldn't, or wouldn't be intelligent enough, to read (or understand) your entire post, etc.)

Unfortunately you are incorrect. I enjoy healthy debate, and while I usually will not budge on a position I do make an effort to entertain and consider other ideas. If my beliefs tend to match those of a certain group, then so be it. I'm not going to change what I think just to be a nonconformist or "think for myself." If I do that than I'm not thinking for myself. Despite what you may think, I do have beliefs that differ from what the Republican platform stands for.

Lastly, you consistently state that we (mainly CrAz3D and myself) resort to ad hominem attacks when debating. This just isn't the case, and if one is used it is usually in a joking manner (for instance, I don't think iago actually has a vagina.) Instead it is generally you who resorts to seriously using personal attacks, usually insulting our intelligence. I know nothing about your credentials, nor do I know where or what you study. Likewise, I assume your knowledge of our schooling is very minimal - limited to what we choose to post on these boards. You're evaluating our intelligence based on posts you disagree with from an internet message board. Or maybe they are ones which were posted in jest. Whatever your reason, academically speaking they are unfounded. CrAz3D and I both are enrolled in reputable secondary institutions, mine being one of the best in the South. You seem to be intelligent, but unlike anybody else on these forums (I'm sure many could match wits with you) you constantly brag about it. What insecurities do you have where you must constantly reassure a bunch of (mainly) high schoolers of your higher intelligence? That is not an attack, but simply a question.

And for the record, I had an A in Algebra.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2007, 08:26:00 pm »
MF/Crazed/Trust: This isn't "leftist spin".  Does everything have to be about politics?  I asked a simple question, and in response, all I've read are irrelevant rationalisations and some thoughtless jabs at a political ideology.  Bringing in politics is particularly disturbing, since it verifies how I understand your thought processes; you have been conditioned to politicize everything.  Rather than carefully considering each individual situation as it presents itself, you bind yourself to a group of people, and when you identify an opinion or argument as one that could be out of line with what the group beliefs, then your mind switches into attacking that belief, until it goes away.  You don't think and then react, you react and then, at best, justify your reaction.  You are not interested in learning from an argument, or even close to entertaining the idea that the other side could be making a good point -- you are instead mostly interested in stamping out the unorthodox belief by whatever means seems effective.  This is mostly directed at Trust (not so much at Myndfyre), since Trust explicitly tried to politicize the argument -- so the discussion could just shift to lefties vs. righties -- and of anyone here, he is least likely to think about what the other person is saying and change his opinion, even if what he says can be shown to be as close to as objectively wrong as is practically possible. 

No this is exactly what it is, it's no different than when political pollsters ask questions which are used to place an idea in a persons head about a candidate (i.e. Would you vote for candidate x if you knew he abused drugs a, b, and c). Even if the candidate never used a drug in his life, the idea that he did is now in the voters head and they won't vote for him. That's exactly what you're doing. You're using careful wording, strong and harsh words one would initially associate with negative actions (rape, terrorize) and then you're humanizing the animals (referring to them as intelligent and innocent). Regardless of whether or not the animals are innocent or intelligent, these are usually characteristics used to describe humans. You placed these harsh words in the readers head, which automatically turns this into an argument of, essentially, good vs. evil. You're just as guilty of politicking as I am, but at least I am straightforward with it. Instead you manipulate the reader by your wording (and you're intelligent enough to consciously do this) and then insult the opposition to further make us the "bad guys." (For example, CrAz3D and I are unable to do basic algebra, we don't listen to or learn from other arguments, we wouldn't, or wouldn't be intelligent enough, to read (or understand) your entire post, etc.)

Unfortunately you are incorrect. I enjoy healthy debate, and while I usually will not budge on a position I do make an effort to entertain and consider other ideas. If my beliefs tend to match those of a certain group, then so be it. I'm not going to change what I think just to be a nonconformist or "think for myself." If I do that than I'm not thinking for myself. Despite what you may think, I do have beliefs that differ from what the Republican platform stands for.

Lastly, you consistently state that we (mainly CrAz3D and myself) resort to ad hominem attacks when debating. This just isn't the case, and if one is used it is usually in a joking manner (for instance, I don't think iago actually has a vagina.) Instead it is generally you who resorts to seriously using personal attacks, usually insulting our intelligence. I know nothing about your credentials, nor do I know where or what you study. Likewise, I assume your knowledge of our schooling is very minimal - limited to what we choose to post on these boards. You're evaluating our intelligence based on posts you disagree with from an internet message board. Or maybe they are ones which were posted in jest. Whatever your reason, academically speaking they are unfounded. CrAz3D and I both are enrolled in reputable secondary institutions, mine being one of the best in the South. You seem to be intelligent, but unlike anybody else on these forums (I'm sure many could match wits with you) you constantly brag about it. What insecurities do you have where you must constantly reassure a bunch of (mainly) high schoolers of your higher intelligence? That is not an attack, but simply a question.

And for the record, I had an A in Algebra.
Long post, yada yada, woman, lol!


Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2007, 08:47:24 pm »
No this is exactly what it is, it's no different than when political pollsters ask questions which are used to place an idea in a persons head about a candidate (i.e. Would you vote for candidate x if you knew he abused drugs a, b, and c). Even if the candidate never used a drug in his life, the idea that he did is now in the voters head and they won't vote for him. That's exactly what you're doing. You're using careful wording, strong and harsh words one would initially associate with negative actions (rape, terrorize) and then you're humanizing the animals (referring to them as intelligent and innocent). Regardless of whether or not the animals are innocent or intelligent, these are usually characteristics used to describe humans. You placed these harsh words in the readers head, which automatically turns this into an argument of, essentially, good vs. evil. You're just as guilty of politicking as I am, but at least I am straightforward with it. Instead you manipulate the reader by your wording (and you're intelligent enough to consciously do this) and then insult the opposition to further make us the "bad guys." (For example, CrAz3D and I are unable to do basic algebra, we don't listen to or learn from other arguments, we wouldn't, or wouldn't be intelligent enough, to read (or understand) your entire post, etc.)

I don't think I've referred to animals as "innocent," in this thread, although I do believe they are.  I refer to certain animals as intelligent because they can demonstrate that they highly aware of their surroundings -- more so than humans actually.  In fact, humans are closer to certain animals than most animals are to one another.  For instance, chimps and humans share 98% of their DNA, 10 times more than mice and rats do, and the 2% difference is mostly in DNA that codes for proteins that are responsible for developing physiology related to speech.  With this in mind, it seems more wrong to lump all animals together and place them in a separate category to humans, in all contexts.

I naively thought there was a small possibility Crazed would learn from what was being posted.  There really isn't anything to the thrill of hunting  except stalking and killing, yes, an intelligent animal.  And I sincerely think that's just as bad as rape.  I'm using extreme language because I think hunting just for amusement -- depending on the animal -- is extremely horrible.  I feel strongly about it, so I use strong language.  So take what I say as I say it.  I think your response somewhat provides support for what I was saying earlier; you're interpreting everything I'm doing as a "tactic" to win an argument.  This only implies that is how you approach arguments.  That is not the motivation here.  "I naively thought there was a small possibility Crazed would learn from what was being posted".

Lastly, you consistently state that we (mainly CrAz3D and myself) resort to ad hominem attacks when debating. This just isn't the case, and if one is used it is usually in a joking manner (for instance, I don't think iago actually has a vagina.)

You're calling black white now.  Did you not see Crazed's response in the trash can?

You're evaluating our intelligence based on posts you disagree with from an internet message board. Or maybe they are ones which were posted in jest.

You and Crazed are similar in some ways, but you are not the same person.  I evaluate intelligence on this message board based on how creative, insightful, and thoughtful people appear in their posts.  Of course that is subjective to an extent, but sometimes these qualities are unarguably obvious or indisputibly lacking.  I also evaluate intelligence based on what can be measured more precisely: critical thinking and logical reasoning.  These are both important skills in almost any facet of life, and they can be traced rather accurately in fields like mathematics and physics.   

What insecurities do you have where you must constantly reassure a bunch of (mainly) high schoolers of your higher intelligence? That is not an attack, but simply a question.

Well, if it's simply an [innocent] question, then I'll give it a fair answer.  Imagine you are a fields medal winner.  This is the highest honour one can receive in mathematics.  Receiving this award means you are likely in the top 0.0000001% of the population in both your innate ability and in your perserverence and determination.  Then you decide to log onto an internet forum, and a bunch of inexperienced children, perhaps 10 years younger than you, start talking to you as your equal or your superior, hardly listen to your arguments, and frustrate you to no end with logical problems you see in the way they think, argue, and make decisions.  Moreover, no amount of reason seems to appeal to them -- it's all a matter of winning and losing, saving face, defending their initial position, and coming back with arguments that to you seem so fucking pathetic you just have to laugh in resignation.   How would you respond?

I'm not a fields medal winner, but maybe that helps you understand my situation, if you take what I've said at face value.    This is quite off-topic though.  I think I've asked very clear and important questions related to the hunting topic, and they haven't been answered.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 08:49:54 pm by Rule »

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2007, 08:50:37 pm »
Killing a coyote by hiding different ways is creative ;D!

(not gonna lie, that's about the only line I read, ha).

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2007, 09:17:00 pm »
I don't think I've referred to animals as "innocent," in this thread, although I do believe they are. ... [snipped for length] I think your response somewhat provides support for what I was saying earlier; you're interpreting everything I'm doing as a "tactic" to win an argument.  This only implies that is how you approach arguments.  That is not the motivation here.  "I naively thought there was a small possibility Crazed would learn from what was being posted".

I apologize if you didn't refer to them as innocent, I thought you had. Perhaps it was just inferred. In any case you have now, and it was just an example anyway. My point was that you are assigning human characteristics in an attempt to appeal to the emotions, whether this is being done consciously or not. It's a persuasive tactic often used, and can commonly be heard when people say "men, women, and children." Furthermore, I am aware of the posted statistics. However, we are obviously the superior species of modern times. Whether we deserve that or not is a different debate, but it's fact. The Bible says animals are here to serve man, and if you're not religious then it can be seen as survival of the fittest. Coyotes, to continue with that example, are a threat to our way of life in certain areas (farmers being able to make a profit to feed their families, for instance.)

You and Crazed are similar in some ways, but you are not the same person.

I grouped us together because it seems it is usually us versus everyone. It also seems as if we are the only two who's intelligence is consistently brought into question by you. I don't know if it is personally motivated, ideologically motivated, or something else. It's just how I see it. Maybe it's just that we are hard drinking racists who hate the environment which brings us together.

Well, if it's simply an [innocent] question, then I'll give it a fair answer.  Imagine you are a fields medal winner.  This is the highest honour one can receive in mathematics.  Receiving this award means you are likely in the top 0.0000001% of the population in both your innate ability and in your perserverence and determination.  Then you decide to log onto an internet forum, and a bunch of inexperienced children, perhaps 10 years younger than you, start talking to you as your equal or your superior, hardly listen to your arguments, and frustrate you to no end with logical problems you see in the way they think, argue, and make decisions.  Moreover, no amount of reason seems to appeal to them -- it's all a matter of winning and losing, saving face, defending their initial position, and coming back with arguments that to you seem so fucking pathetic you just have to laugh in resignation.   How would you respond?

I'm not a fields medal winner, but maybe that helps you understand my situation, if you take what I've said at face value.    This is quite off-topic though.  I think I've asked very clear and important questions related to the hunting topic, and they haven't been answered.


First off, as you said you are not a fields medal winner (nor to my knowledge are you 10 years older than the rest of the board.) Since you aren't, I don't see how this comparison has any value. Additionally it is bumptious to compare yourself to a fields medal winner. Anyway, it seems as if you're continually mistaking "not agreeing" with "not listening to your arguments." I don't speak for CrAz3D, but I listen to your arguments and consider them - I just don't agree with them. You make valid points, I just think they are wrong. If we are engaged in debate (especially political or moral) why isn't it appropriate to defend my initial position? I debated in highschool, and that was always the format. How would I respond though? If this situation is truly as bothersome and frustrating as you make it sound, and since defending your initial position is not something that one should be doing (thus no reason to continue debate) I would probably just quit posting. Or at least I would quit posting in controversial discussions.

In regards to hunting, could you please list your questions again? I think they may have been overlooked or mixed in with the insults in previous posts. I'm not a hunter, but many of my friends are and I'm also not against hunting for sport (in season.) I enjoy fishing though.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2007, 10:17:51 pm »
I think that animals should, as funny as it sounds, be humanized. I fail to see any significant in what humans and animals are, at the core. We're all intelligent creatures. Humanizing animals makes it harder to want to harm them. And that's good, you should feel bad when you kill another living being for any reason. At the most basic level, I see no major difference between eating an animal and eating another human being, yet most people consider the latter to be extraordinarily disgusting.

There is one thing we have that most animals don't, though: the ability to use tools and our environment in new and innovative ways. Yet, we constantly find ways to use that for harm (whether it's to each other, animals, or the world in general). It's unfortunate that we use the intelligence we have, arguably a very nice gift, in so many negative ways.

Offline Sidoh

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17634
  • MHNATY ~~~~~
    • View Profile
    • sidoh
Re: Hunting
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2007, 10:51:02 pm »
This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I split all of the posts involving the hunting and gun "debate" and moved them into this thread.  Thanks to Rule for pointing out I missed most of them.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2007, 03:13:03 am »
I think that animals should, as funny as it sounds, be humanized. I fail to see any significant in what humans and animals are, at the core. We're all intelligent creatures. Humanizing animals makes it harder to want to harm them.
That's horrible English, are you drunk?  "I fail to see any significant in what humans and animals are, at the core."  Maybe high since you're a Canuck? ;D!

Who cares if they're intelligent, they taste good/cause problems.  We execute people because there is no better way to deal with them ... nothing wrong there.  And many animals are tasty.

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2007, 03:30:07 am »
:(
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 03:47:11 am by Rule »

Offline Furious

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • I hate rabbits
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2007, 08:08:48 am »
I didn't read through all the essays in here.  How many of you against hunting for "amusement" are vegetarians?  The extent of my hunting is taking my BB gun in the backyard and killing the squirrels that like to eat my outside furniture.
Quote
[23:04:34] <deadly7[x86]> Newby[x86]
[23:04:35] <deadly7[x86]> YOU ARE AN EMO
[23:04:39] <Newby[x86]> shush it woman

Quote
[17:53:31] InsaneJoey[e2] was banned by x86 (GO EAT A BAG OF FUCK ASSHOLE (randomban)).

Quote from: Ergot
Put it this way Joe... you're on my Buddy List... if there's no one else on an you're the only one, I'd rather talk to myself.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2007, 08:35:05 am »
I think that animals should, as funny as it sounds, be humanized. I fail to see any significant in what humans and animals are, at the core. We're all intelligent creatures. Humanizing animals makes it harder to want to harm them.
That's horrible English, are you drunk?  "I fail to see any significant in what humans and animals are, at the core."  Maybe high since you're a Canuck? ;D!

Who cares if they're intelligent, they taste good/cause problems.  We execute people because there is no better way to deal with them ... nothing wrong there.  And many animals are tasty.

After writing it, I went back and made changes. They obviously weren't poofread very well. D'oh!

That one sentence should be, "I fail to see any significant in which humans and animals are, at the core, different"

I didn't read through all the essays in here.  How many of you against hunting for "amusement" are vegetarians?  The extent of my hunting is taking my BB gun in the backyard and killing the squirrels that like to eat my outside furniture.
I am vegan.

Offline Warrior

  • supreme mac daddy of trolls
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7503
  • One for a Dime two for a Quarter!
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2007, 11:28:06 am »
There is an indicator that this thread may deliver.

One must ask oneself: "do I will trolling to become a universal law?" And then when one realizes "yes, I do will it to be such," one feels completely justified.
-- from Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Trolling

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2007, 11:44:39 am »
That one sentence should be, "I fail to see any significant in which humans and animals are, at the core, different"
I fail to see any significant difference in what humans and animals are at the core? ... you mean something more similar to that?


Well, let's see.  Instincts, we don't really have to act on our gut feeling, we're reasonable, etc.  We are completely different at the core.

Offline Blaze

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Canadian
    • View Profile
    • Maide
Re: Hunting
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2007, 01:33:13 pm »
There is an indicator that this thread may deliver.



Go back to the WoW forums with these type of posts.  :P
And like a fool I believed myself, and thought I was somebody else...

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2007, 01:40:12 pm »
Trust, I don't have time for a long reply, but I would like to point out that this is not a highschool debate.  People should not approach their lives as though they're in a highschool debate. The purpose of a high-school debate is just to win; the only reason for considering or thinking about the other person's viewpoint is to see how you can discredit it.  It is an exercise in persuasion. 

In real life, you should be happy to admit when you are wrong, because then you have learned something.

Well, let's see.  Instincts, we don't really have to act on our gut feeling, we're reasonable, etc.  We are completely different at the core.

We're reasonable? Look at you?  Look at what humans are doing to the world.  We're completely different at the core?  Good job supporting that controversial point.  I particularly like your touch; how you argue by either stating very questionable propositions as obvious facts -- proof of your thoughtlessness -- and when that fails you become aggressive: first you are actively aggressive, and then passive aggressive.


Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2007, 01:43:57 pm »
Trust, I don't have time for a long reply, but I would like to point out that this is not a highschool debate.  People should not approach their lives as though they're in a highschool debate. The purpose of a high-school debate is just to win; the only reason for considering or thinking about the other person's viewpoint is to see how you can discredit it.  It is an exercise in persuasion. 

In real life, you should be happy to admit when you are wrong, because then you have learned something.

Well, let's see.  Instincts, we don't really have to act on our gut feeling, we're reasonable, etc.  We are completely different at the core.

We're reasonable? Look at you?  Look at what humans are doing to the world.  We're completely different at the core?  Good job supporting that controversial point.  I particularly like your touch; how you argue by either stating very questionable propositions as obvious facts -- proof of your thoughtlessness -- and when that fails you become aggressive: first you are actively aggressive, and then passive aggressive.


And I like your touch.  It's soft and so dainty.


Pot calling kettle black, yet again. (re: bold part)

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2007, 02:05:16 pm »
Trust, I don't have time for a long reply, but I would like to point out that this is not a highschool debate.  People should not approach their lives as though they're in a highschool debate. The purpose of a high-school debate is just to win; the only reason for considering or thinking about the other person's viewpoint is to see how you can discredit it.  It is an exercise in persuasion. 

In real life, you should be happy to admit when you are wrong, because then you have learned something.

The thing is we're discussing opinion, we're not debating fact. How can I admit that I'm wrong when I'm not? Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean it is wrong.

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2007, 02:18:16 pm »
Trust, I don't have time for a long reply, but I would like to point out that this is not a highschool debate.  People should not approach their lives as though they're in a highschool debate. The purpose of a high-school debate is just to win; the only reason for considering or thinking about the other person's viewpoint is to see how you can discredit it.  It is an exercise in persuasion. 

In real life, you should be happy to admit when you are wrong, because then you have learned something.

The thing is we're discussing opinion, we're not debating fact. How can I admit that I'm wrong when I'm not? Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean it is wrong.

This is what I said: "In real life, you should be happy to admit when you are wrong, because then you have learned something."  Do you have a problem with that comment as a general statement?

And of course that translates, in this discussion, to changing your viewpoint.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2007, 02:21:29 pm »
It sounds like you're telling trust he should realize that he is wrong.

Offline Furious

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • I hate rabbits
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2007, 04:05:20 pm »
There is an indicator that this thread may deliver.



Go back to the WoW forums with these type of posts.  :P

I was thinking the same thing, ha!
Quote
[23:04:34] <deadly7[x86]> Newby[x86]
[23:04:35] <deadly7[x86]> YOU ARE AN EMO
[23:04:39] <Newby[x86]> shush it woman

Quote
[17:53:31] InsaneJoey[e2] was banned by x86 (GO EAT A BAG OF FUCK ASSHOLE (randomban)).

Quote from: Ergot
Put it this way Joe... you're on my Buddy List... if there's no one else on an you're the only one, I'd rather talk to myself.

Offline Hitmen

  • B&
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2007, 06:28:24 pm »
There is an indicator that this thread may deliver.



Go back to the WoW forums with these type of posts.  :P


Posting in a legendary thread.
Posting in an epic thread.  :P

lolwut?
Quote
(22:15:39) Newby: it hurts to swallow

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2007, 06:30:09 pm »
Trust, I don't have time for a long reply, but I would like to point out that this is not a highschool debate.  People should not approach their lives as though they're in a highschool debate. The purpose of a high-school debate is just to win; the only reason for considering or thinking about the other person's viewpoint is to see how you can discredit it.  It is an exercise in persuasion. 

In real life, you should be happy to admit when you are wrong, because then you have learned something.

The thing is we're discussing opinion, we're not debating fact. How can I admit that I'm wrong when I'm not? Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean it is wrong.

Opinions can be right or wrong. He didn't simply disagree with it.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #45 on: December 27, 2007, 06:33:49 pm »
Opinions can be wrong/right!? 

Well, veganism in your opinion is ok yeah?  Since it goes against what we've done for centuries you're wrong and should be forced to eat meat.  TA DA.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #46 on: December 27, 2007, 06:41:14 pm »
Veganism isn't an opinion, it's a reasoned decision. I didn't jump into it with no thoughts, far from it. I spent a ton of time thinking about it.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #47 on: December 27, 2007, 07:57:40 pm »
In your opinion it is reasonable, in my opinion you're nuts.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2007, 08:51:02 pm »
Well, that's just proof that opinions can be incorrect. In this case, yours is.

I've made a reasoned case for my decision elsewhere.

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #49 on: December 27, 2007, 08:53:09 pm »
Well, that's just proof that opinions can be incorrect. In this case, yours is.

I've made a reasoned case for my decision elsewhere.

You think his opinion is incorrect just because you disagree with it? I'm glad that everyone else on this forum is held to the same standards that CrAz3D and I are.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #50 on: December 27, 2007, 09:02:00 pm »
Well, that's just proof that opinions can be incorrect. In this case, yours is.

I've made a reasoned case for my decision elsewhere.
All opinions are valid because they are not fact.  Will Smith thinks Hitler was a good person, others disagree...opinions

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #51 on: December 27, 2007, 09:18:32 pm »
Well, that's just proof that opinions can be incorrect. In this case, yours is.

I've made a reasoned case for my decision elsewhere.

You think his opinion is incorrect just because you disagree with it? I'm glad that everyone else on this forum is held to the same standards that CrAz3D and I are.

I'm glad to see you have a sense of humour.

Well, that's just proof that opinions can be incorrect. In this case, yours is.

I've made a reasoned case for my decision elsewhere.
All opinions are valid because they are not fact.  Will Smith thinks Hitler was a good person, others disagree...opinions
Well, Hitler was either a good person or wasn't, it's a fact, not an opinion. It's obviously a contested fact, so people hold different beliefs, but only one can be right.

If you think about it, you can say that everything that you can't prove from first principles is an opinion and people can believe anything because nobody can possibly know what's true and what isn't. But that doesn't make for very good arguments.

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2007, 09:26:29 pm »
Whether or not Hitler was a good person is opinion, not fact. It's relative to one's personal beliefs and definition of "good." For instance, obviously he had many supporters during his time and did good things for the German people and economy. To us in the West (myself included), and most of Europe (most of the world) he was not a good person, but that is just our opinion. Likewise it is our opinion that Osama bin Laden is evil, yet to his supporters he is not.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2007, 10:03:54 pm »
Whether or not Hitler was a good person is opinion, not fact. It's relative to one's personal beliefs and definition of "good." For instance, obviously he had many supporters during his time and did good things for the German people and economy. To us in the West (myself included), and most of Europe (most of the world) he was not a good person, but that is just our opinion. Likewise it is our opinion that Osama bin Laden is evil, yet to his supporters he is not.
Technically, there are more people in Asia than in the rest of the world combined (4 billion in asia, under 7 billion total), so saying "most of the world" is a little incorrect.

In any case, what you're arguing is that the definitions of "good" and "evil" are relative, which I don't think is true. There is no general agreement on the correct definition, but that just becomes arguing about semantics. For some definition of evil, Hitler is evil, and for another definition, he isn't. But that's just defining words differently.

Offline CrAz3D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2007, 10:12:06 pm »
Whether or not Hitler was a good person is opinion, not fact. It's relative to one's personal beliefs and definition of "good." For instance, obviously he had many supporters during his time and did good things for the German people and economy. To us in the West (myself included), and most of Europe (most of the world) he was not a good person, but that is just our opinion. Likewise it is our opinion that Osama bin Laden is evil, yet to his supporters he is not.
Wow, an intelligent and thoughtful post by trust the southern redneck that agrees with me about terrorizing animals?  I didn't thunk that us southern folks was capable of such thinkin'.  wowee.




This quote intrigues me:
All I really ask is that you respect each other's opinions and beliefs, and have fun doing it.  There's nothing wrong with poking fun; in fact, in the words of a good friend of mine, "It's the responsibility of any good friend to make fun of you if you do something stupid; how else are you going to know?"  At the time, we were talking about how a common friend of ours dresses (faded pants, whatever they're called, look sooo gay), but it's still a good quote. 

Respect opinions huh?  Like maybe the opinion that hunting pests is ok and maybe I shouldn't be openly ridiculed for it by being told that "I just terrorize intelligent animals"?

This applies not to this thread, but the thread about "woman" being used as a negative connotation.  I like how trust gets called out for using something such as "vagina" in a negative manner but you don't hold yourself to those same standards.  Does that seem hypocritical to you?  Sure does to me.

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2007, 10:44:43 pm »
Whether or not Hitler was a good person is opinion, not fact. It's relative to one's personal beliefs and definition of "good." For instance, obviously he had many supporters during his time and did good things for the German people and economy. To us in the West (myself included), and most of Europe (most of the world) he was not a good person, but that is just our opinion. Likewise it is our opinion that Osama bin Laden is evil, yet to his supporters he is not.
Technically, there are more people in Asia than in the rest of the world combined (4 billion in asia, under 7 billion total), so saying "most of the world" is a little incorrect.

After rereading what I said, I can see how I was unclear. What I meant was the West, Europe, and most of the world. It was just additional information, but since I placed it after Europe that implies I was talking about Europe. Sorry.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2007, 11:41:07 pm »
Whether or not Hitler was a good person is opinion, not fact. It's relative to one's personal beliefs and definition of "good." For instance, obviously he had many supporters during his time and did good things for the German people and economy. To us in the West (myself included), and most of Europe (most of the world) he was not a good person, but that is just our opinion. Likewise it is our opinion that Osama bin Laden is evil, yet to his supporters he is not.
Technically, there are more people in Asia than in the rest of the world combined (4 billion in asia, under 7 billion total), so saying "most of the world" is a little incorrect.

After rereading what I said, I can see how I was unclear. What I meant was the West, Europe, and most of the world. It was just additional information, but since I placed it after Europe that implies I was talking about Europe. Sorry.

Well, that was beside the point anyways.

Offline rabbit

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8092
  • I speak for the entire clan (except Joe)
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #57 on: December 28, 2007, 01:39:42 am »
It's not like Hitler was responsible for the United States and Canadian interstate and highway systems or anything, so of course he was bad.  O, he also wasn't responsible for rocket technology either.  Or jet propulsion.

Offline Blaze

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Canadian
    • View Profile
    • Maide
Re: Hunting
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2007, 01:44:15 am »
In my opinion, all opinions are wrong.  <-- Paradox?
And like a fool I believed myself, and thought I was somebody else...

Offline Sidoh

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17634
  • MHNATY ~~~~~
    • View Profile
    • sidoh
Re: Hunting
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2007, 02:29:45 am »
In my opinion, all opinions are wrong.  <-- Paradox?

Yep!  Almost exactly like saying "There is no truth."

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Hunting
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2007, 08:04:12 am »
In my opinion, all opinions are wrong.  <-- Paradox?

Yep!  Almost exactly like saying "There is no truth."

Pfft, that's an easy paradox to resolve.

"There are no absolutes except for this statement"

"In my opinion, all opinions are wrong, except for this one"

Offline Ender

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2390
    • View Profile
Re: Hunting
« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2008, 06:32:35 pm »
CrAz3d and Trust,

Judging from your responses in this thread, your arguments suck. Which clearly makes people think less of your opinions. All opinions and arguments entail assumptions and deductions. Opinions and arguments can be incorrect if they are based off of unsound assumptions and deductions.

For example,

Opinions can be wrong/right!? 

Well, veganism in your opinion is ok yeah?  Since it goes against what we've done for centuries you're wrong and should be forced to eat meat.  TA DA.

1. You assume that the majority does something => it's right. This is logical fallacies 101.
2. Many people cannot afford to live a healthy vegan life
3. Centuries ago it probably wasn't possible to live a healthy vegan life, so your antiquity argument is meaningless.
4. You took iago's "opinions can be right or wrong" to mean "all opinions are either right or wrong", and then claim that veganism must be either right or wrong. This is unimpressive critical reading, which is another reason why your opinions following that are thought less of. While opinions and arguments can be correct and incorrect, this dichotomy does not characterize all opinions and arguments. In layman's terms, opinions and arguments are sometimes correct, incorrect, or neither (aka fuzzy). Veganism is neither... it's a fuzzy issue, and is based off some beliefs and preferences whose validity cannot be completely tested.
5. Your voice is somewhat silly and not respectable (e.g. "ok yeah" and "TA DA"). Though I have to admit, your voice often amuses me.

EDIT:

As a followup to point 4 that I made, I should remark that the idea that there are no right and wrong answers is an inane attempt to increase participation in elementary school classes. This idea is wrong, stupid, and should be burned. But pay attention to critical reading: while there are some questions that have no right answers as of now, there are some questions that do have right answers. It's false that there are no right or wrong answers. In general, most questions have wrong answers, which is why you get picked on so much.

:ENDOFEDIT

Now this is just one example post of yours. I realize it was somewhat sarcastic, but just about every other post you've made in this thread lacks any grounding and gives the same impression.

Sorry for being harsh, but I look forward to seeing improvements in your argumentation. However, this is a journey that you must make on your own -- I cannot hold your hand in this. (I don't want to spend my time that way.)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 06:40:42 pm by Ender »

trust

  • Guest
Re: Hunting
« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2008, 07:35:36 pm »
Thank you for your delayed, yet extremely productive, addition to this topic.