 | | Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
I guess this was in response to me, though I'm not exactly sure how. I hate to risk trying to connect it to the topic before which was based on rights and responsibilites since that doesn't seem to be the main point. So I'll take an approach (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) And some of the non-hunters as well. I personally don't hunt, don't personally care for it, but I think it's a good skill to have. And I wish all hunters were as thoughtful as Chris. Hunters indeed were the first conservationists. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: *Native* (was "Re: Future Wild West Possibilities")
|
|
"Franklin W. Cain" <fwcain@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FrsKE4.B4v@lugnet.com... (...) Hear, Hear I agree with you completely (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What happened?
|
|
(...) But if it's blue, it might be on sale. Yuck! Chris (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
OK, I think I'll step in now and rant a bit. This has nothing to do with nutritional value, or anything like that, just my overall view. This'll be a long one... I hunt. Deer, rabbit, squirrel, and pheasant. Deer for the most part. Now, I've been (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
|
(...) do (...) are (...) I didn't contradict that. Note above that in my attempt to show what you were saying, I state that eating is a need. So it is what you said...right? (...) I agree with this for the most part. Many predatory fish will eat the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
|
(...) No, that's your interpretation of it, but that's not what I said. "Rights" are an artificial construct of humans so that they can better live together. Eating is a one of our most basic needs, not a right. (...) I explained why I feel they are (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) Your claim was that the 'need' to do something (eat) granted the 'right' to do something (kill (almost) anything). But you reject the first analogy that I tried relating the hunting of deer to the hunting of people. So I tried relating the (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) To further the line of ungermane thoughts, I think it's safe to say that more people have died from club attack than nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why that seems significant at this time, but it does. Chris (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) That may be his assertion, but I would say that nuclear weapons are the natural outcome of eons of development too. The entire time that we've been growing more efficient at eating mroe things, we've been growing more efficient in defending (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
